| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 585
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Sorry, busy at work.
Different stats for MG and HE would be great. This allows for diversification.
I'd still prefer actual MG rules for the hullmounted / coaxial Machineguns on tanks.
I.e. grazing fire / double shot. A +1 on each die if not in cover would only be acceptible if it would be a blanket rule for all machineguns.
Anyways, I like it. Let's keep it.
_________________
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
Heinz Guderian |
|
 Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:51 pm |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sorry to be so late in putting in my two pence here. "Busy at work" is part of my excuse as well.
Zeus identified the two central isues.
| Zeus wrote: |
1. Have a single anti-Soldier stat line, or an anti-Infantry and an anti-Artillery stat line? |
The attack value should not differ based on whether the personnel are infantry or an artillery crew. If the artillery crew has a shield, this can be reflected in the unit's defense factor. If the artillery crew is in a bunker, this can be reflected in a terrain value.
| Quote: | | 2. Model separate weapons separately (coaxial MG's, hull mounted MG's, rear turret/hull MG's), or make a single attack value representing the overall firepower? Or model all turret weapons as one combined stat, and model other weapons separately? |
Doing everything separately would violate the Keep it Simple Stupid (KISS) principle and head us down the road of Battleground WWII or Advanced Squad Leader. Neural Dream's proposal to have one MG value and one HE value for AI is a good middle ground between the everything separate and everything together approaches. I don't think it would complicate matters too much to adopt AOD's suggestion of a +1 for straight ahead AI shots when the vehicle has a hull MG.
Another question that has been discussed is whether to allow a certain number of HE rounds per game. It will violate KISS to have to start keeping track of ammunition. Readers seem to be able to provide information on the typical ratios between the different types of ammunition carried. This information could be used to weight the overall AI and AT values. I.e., if the attacking unit typically carried very little HE, its main gun AI value would be decreased accordingly. This won't be precise or perfect, but it will keep the game playable and be reasonably historical.
I hope this helps.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:27 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | An example would be:
Tiger
----- (0 - 4) (5 - 8) (9 - 14) (15 - 18) or something like that
MG___9_____7_____0______0________ [ with +1 on each die against enemies not in cover ]
HE___9_____8_____7______5_________ [ with -1 for enemy cover rolls ]
Any comments? |
we are getting somewhere  it is very close
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:32 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| RAEVSKI wrote: | | NeuralDream wrote: | An example would be:
Tiger
----- (0 - 4) (5 - 8) (9 - 14) (15 - 18) or something like that
MG___9_____7_____0______0________ [ with +1 on each die against enemies not in cover ]
HE___9_____8_____7______5_________ [ with -1 for enemy cover rolls ]
Any comments? |
we are getting somewhere it is very close |
I agree with this except I think that the MG values are high if you are going to give +1 on each die. Like a bad basketball player, the ponderous tank is telegraphing all its moves. The infantry would constantly be adjusting its position as the tank slews its turret and hull trying to find a target. I would go 9/6 and give the soldier +1 to cover.
As for HE, the cover system already has built-in penalties for more accurate shots. Any attack that exceeds the base defense gets -1 and attacks that equal the "vital armor" get an additional -1. Also, since the units now have individualized cover values and the terrain types have different modifiers, it will be harder to make cover under ordinary conditions. I would suggest waiting for an actual playtest before you do that. It will be difficult to get a bunch of SSPG's out of a stone farmhouse, but ordinary infantry in a light woods or peasant village will not have the same protection as in the original.
If the -1 is there because the Tiger had a great HE round, then I can see it. I'd like to keep that for higher caliber/superior rounds.
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:03 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The numbers that I suggested were pretty much random and generic (you are right that MG 9 is too high). If you agree with the concept, we can continue with initial guidelines for stats. Also, I will remove the cover modifier suggestion for HE attacks.
As for MG attacks against inf, a group of 5 soldiers that are not in cover should be very easy to kill even with a single MG. Distance is not an issue for typical MG attacks, especially with the superior optics of such tanks, so there is no reason for the attack value to drop too much at long range. Unlike infantry MG teams, tank MGs were almost equally effective at 100, 200 and 500m. Things get harder at 700+.
Who would like to suggest the initial MG/HE guidelines with a few examples of well-known tanks?
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I think we should make HE values fit into the AP matrix. That being said:
Sherman
MG (0-5) 8/ (6-7) 5
HE (0-2) 9/ (3-5) 8/ (6-10) 7
or
AI (0-2) 9/ (3-5) 8/ (6-10) 7
How about if vehicles with a bow MG get a DF attack against soldiers who enter through front arc? That could simulate a BMG without throwing off the numbers.
I'm still not sure that distinguishing between MG & HE adds a whole lot. I still think we should go with the better of the two at any given range. Which weapon to use is a crew decision, not a platoon/company decision. I think we can build the MGs into the stats or an SA like the one suggested above.
The effectiveness of the MG's would show up more in a tank that's not as AI-oriented as the Sherman.
If we are simulating a relativley large period of time in a firefight, the crew might be switching back and forth between weapons. Any added realism might be too complicated since each tank is only so effective at any given range and one number would simulate that. Given the chaos, distractions, etc inherent in combat, I don't see where any auxiliary weapon in a tank should have an effect great enough to warrant extra rules.
Tanks where the MG (or 20mm) is the primary weapon should do better with their MGs.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:47 pm |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I like Sharpe's suggestion. It gives some weight to the hull mounted MG but does not complicate the game by requiring separate shots from the MG and the main gun.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:18 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm ok with anything, but even with combined stats we still need a set of guidelines. Anyone willing to write them down?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:25 pm |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I may give the guidelines a try, if anyone is willing to try to apply them and get some proposed cards for tanks moving through the approval process. Is anyone out there interested?
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:38 am |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sure.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:23 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I am working on proposed guidelines for vehicle anti-infantry values, combining machine gun and high explosive data for one value at each range.
Preliminarily, I am coming to the conclusion that at the (0-1) hex range, tanks would not be able to use high explosive but would instead rely on integral machine guns. My reasoning is that at point blank range, the tank would not be able to deliver the high explosive shell. At just beyond point blank range, the tank gun could deliver the shell, but the blast from the explosion would likely be harmful to the tank as well as the target. Thus tanks firing high explosive are like mortars in the sense that within a certain minimum range the weapon would damage its own crew. If anyone has a source for the minimum ranges at which tanks could use high explosives, or for standard tank anti-infantry tactics in WWII, I would appreciate it.
A second preliminary conclusion is that if a vehicle can fire both its MG and HE at a given infantry target, the cumulative effect of this combined fire should be reflected in the number of AI attack dice. Is there any good reason to simply compare the MG and HE values and pick the higher one?
Also, I would like to know if anyone has armor penetration values for the guns of various nationalities, similar to the penetration values for German guns that came from Tenente Colonelle 08 and which are posted in this thread and in the gallery. I would like to include AV values in my examples, and per Sharpe's suggestion I would like to conform the AI ranges to the AV ranges for simplicity of play. In particular, I'd like to get armor penetration values for the M4A1 Sherman's 75mm/L40 that Sharpe used in his example on this thread.
By the way, studying this problem recently has given me a renewed appreciation of the fine work N.D., Sharpe, and others have done to put FA on a sound footing. I hope we can keep sufficient momentum to enable us to complete it.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:22 am |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Pretty much all tank gun barrels could be depressed enough to deliver a shell closer than 10 meters, and I sincerely doubt a non-HEAT HE shell could damage the tank by blast alone if a direct hit with the same shell couldn't penetrate...
If you do go this way, I would suggest to only disallow HE usage against targets in the same hex. I would use a basic distance of 100 meters from hex to hex and forget the fact that theoretically, the distance between two adjacent hexes could be anywhere between 0 and 200 meters; if you want to simulate that, then most SMG's (effective range 100-200 meters max) wouldn't even be able to attack a target in an adjacent hex!
As for using both MG's and HE, I think the barrel would need to be aimed slightly above the target because of the curvy trajectory of an HE shell. Only slightly, but enough to be of no use to the coaxially mounted MG, which with its flatter trajectory would fire over the targets. So using the best of either doesn't sound so strange. Remember, there were numerous tanks in the infantry support role with a low velocity gun which wasn't very effective against vehicles, but they still seemed to prefer it to a tank armed only with MG's.
Note, these are mostly assumptions based on what I've read! I know, just like you're now finding out , that it's hard to find such detailed operational data. |
|
| Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:33 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Zeus,
The fact that an HE shell hitting the tank would not penetrate doesn't mean that HE exploding at 10 meters' distance would not have the potential to do any damage. The potential for such damage is illustrated by the "blast" SA, which is already assigned to mortars, 75mm IG, sIG 33, and other HE weapons. This SA provides that HE weapons roll a separate attack against each unit in the target hex. The attack has to be made on all units, whether friendly or not, and is not limited to soldiers. Thus, by definition, a tank firing HE on targets in the same hex would also be firing on itself. The AI rule should prohibit use of HE against targets in the same hex.
As to simultaneous use of HE and MG, I see your point about the different trajectories of the main gun and the coaxial MG. There is also the separate issue of whether there are sufficient crew members in a given vehicle who are free to fire both the main gun and the coaxial MG and at the same time keep a lookout, communicate with crew and other tanks, and drive the tank. I agree with you that it is indeed hard to find definitive information on these details.
Assuming that simultaneous use of the main gun HE and a coaxial MG is out, what do you think about the simultaneous firing of the main gun and hull mounted MGs? For example, the Sherman M4A1 had five crew members, one main gun, one coaxial MG, and two hull mounted MGs. The commander, gunner, and loader were in the turret. If we assume that the crew cannot simultaneously fire both the main gun and the coaxial MG, that still leaves the two hull mounted MGs. The driver and assistant driver were in the hull, and each had access to one of the hull-mounted MGs. Assuming the driver and assistant driver were not fully engaged in driving the vehicle, why couldn't the vehicle simultaneously deliver fire from the two hull MGs and the main gun against soldiers within range?
I am thinking that the AI value of a vehicle against targets in the same hex will be limited to the MGs. The attack value will be increased for each MG that can be fired simultaneously.
For targets from one hex up to the limit of MG range (8 hexes?), the AI value will depend on the how many "independent" machine guns are available. Independent means the MG can be aimed and fired independently of, and simultaneously with, the main gun. Examples would be MGs mounted on pintels on the turret, and MGs mounted in the hull, assuming personnel are available to fire them while the main gun is being loaded, aimed, and fired. The AI value will include both the HE value and some added amount for the MGs.
If there is only a coax, then the better of the MG or HE value will be used. Beyond MG range, the AI value will be that of HE only.
What do you think?
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:20 am |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree with your assessment of the Blast SA - but note that this is usually given only to the larger guns firing HE (the 75mm IG being the weird exception here). If the blast radius of a shell is so large as to warrant Blast, then I can understand it could potentially damage the tank itself, but then the Blast SA takes care of that (doesn't it?).
As for MG and HE fire, I have it like this; maybe you can get some ideas from it.
-- the main attack stats reflect the best of the forward turret weapons (ie either the main gun or the coaxial MG/MGs);
-- a coaxial gives 7/6/5 as (minimum) AI stats, and allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 dice against Soldiers IF it is in a hex that doesn't give it cover;
-- two coaxials give 8/7/6 as (minimum) AI stats, and allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 dice against Soldiers IF it is in a hex that doesn't give it cover;
-- a rear turret MG allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 dice against Soldiers IF it is in a hex that doesn't give it cover;
-- a combination of one or two coaxial MG's and a rear turret MG allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 or 8 dice (dep. on the number of coaxials) with +1 on each attack die, IF not in cover;
-- a front hull MG allows an extra attack at 7/5/- against a Soldier in front of the Vehicle, IF the Vehicle is not disrupted;
-- an pintle-mounted AA gun allows the Vehicle to attack Aircraft (no def fire against them though), but using it allows adjacent enemies def fire against the Vehicle as a def 3 Soldier. It does not give attacks or a bonus on attacks against Soldiers.
I already statted and printed many Vehicles from France 1940 and North Africa according to these rules, so I'm loath to change them again  , and so far they work very well... But I have to admit that I would like to try making the coaxial MG 8/6/4 or even 7/5/- or something like that. This would give me more room to make even the smaller calibres (37-57mm) HE shells slightly more effective than MG's at long range, which I think they were.
Right now, I have the basic 75mm low velocity guns (like on the early Panzers IV and Shermans) at 9/8/7, and based other HE shells power on this, subtracting or adding dice for less or more explosive filler and for high velocity guns (these tended to bury the shells in the ground).
BTW I don't think the Sherman had 2 hull MG's... Where did you get this info? |
|
| Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:21 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
My mistake on the Sherman MGs-- I believe I misunderstood the source, which I did not note. According to the source quoted below, there were three MGs total, but only one in the hull (.30 cal). The others were in the turret (.30 cal coaxial) or on the turret roof (.50 cal anti-aircraft). | Quote: | Armament:
The main armament for the M4A1(76)W was the 76mm gun, referred to as the M1A1, M1A1C or M2. The M1A1 was an earlier version of the gun that was not threaded for a muzzle brake. The installation of a muzzle brake greatly reduced recoil and the amount of dust kicked up by the gun by directing the muzzle blast to the sides. The addition of a long cord primer to the ammunition reduced the amount of smoke in the muzzle blast, and both of these implements greatly reduced the amount of target obscuration after the firing of the main gun. The M1A1C and the M1A2 both were threaded for muzzle brakes, while the newer M1A2 gun also had tighter rifling in the barrel, which resulted in greater projectile stability and accuracy while slightly increasing armor penetration.
Fitting the 76mm gun into the existing turret of the 75mm M4 was rejected by the US Armored Force due to room limitations. The turret designed for the T23 medium tank was used in its place. The gun was mounted in the M62 gun mount with the direct telescopic sight M71D. The backup periscope sight M4A1 was still retained.
The secondary armament for the M4A1 was two .30 caliber machineguns and one .50 caliber machine gun. One of .30 caliber machine guns was mounted coaxially with the main gun in the turret mount and the other .30 MG was mounted in a rotational ball turret in the front hull. The .50 caliber machinegun was mounted on the turret roof next to the tank commander’s hatch for anti-aircraft purposes.
|
Dan “dano6” Kowaleski, The M4A1(76)W Medium Tank, posted at www.combatmission.com/articles/usmedtanks/m4a1.doc
The Blast SA won't take care of tanks firing HE, unless that SA is given to tanks. Contrary to my comments about possible damage to the tank from firing HE, however, it may not be appropriate for a number of tank guns to have the "blast" SA. Another member has suggested that HE from smaller caliber tank guns was not very effective at any range. Thus these guns wouldn't qualify for "blast," which takes us back to the original question whether they could use HE rather than their MGs at very close ranges.
| Quote: | | Any gun larger than 20mm and smaller than 65mm is going to be ineffective. There’s just not enough bursting power unless it has some sort of autofire. That’s why the Brits didn’t bother issuing 2lb and 6lb HE ammo even though it existed. Mortar rounds are different since the shell is so thin, but firing from a cannon requires a thicker casing and reduces the explosive charge. I believe that almost all the early war tanks with 37mm and 47mm guns should rely primarily on their MGs for attack values. Beyond MG range (limited by visibility more than bullet distance), their anti-personnel attacks should be very weak. This would also affect the turret guns in the Grant, Lee and Char B. |
What are your thoughts in light of this suggestion?
By the way, I'd be interested to see how you statted your tanks for France 1940. That will give me another basis for comparison in coming up with proposed guidelines and examples on this thread.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Fri May 01, 2009 1:30 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The problem is that with 100m hexes, not all attacks in same hex (probably very few) would be within blast range of HE. Bigger guns would not have a 0 range.
Give vehicles have a separate 0-range attack value based on MG only for DF against a Close Assault.
_________________
|
|
| Fri May 01, 2009 2:35 am |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Any gun larger than 20mm and smaller than 65mm is going to be ineffective. There’s just not enough bursting power unless it has some sort of autofire. That’s why the Brits didn’t bother issuing 2lb and 6lb HE ammo even though it existed. Mortar rounds are different since the shell is so thin, but firing from a cannon requires a thicker casing and reduces the explosive charge. I believe that almost all the early war tanks with 37mm and 47mm guns should rely primarily on their MGs for attack values. Beyond MG range (limited by visibility more than bullet distance), their anti-personnel attacks should be very weak. This would also affect the turret guns in the Grant, Lee and Char B. |
This sounds acceptable to me. I'm using 7/6/5 for a turret MG attack, and most of my tanks come out with these AI values because I considered their main gun HE ammo to be less effective. Only the heavier calibres and low velocity guns get higher AI stats (also based on explosive filler weight).
Short 75mm infantry support guns like in the T34/76, Sherman, Panzer IV and Semovente 75/18 used comparable ammo. I statted them at 9/8/7, and I think I gave the Tiger's 88mm HE shell 8/7/6 for having more explosive filler but a disadvantage in being high velocity.
My stats would probably mean nothing without some background and SA descriptions, but if you want I can compile a short list of relevant rules and the ideas they're based on, and send you an Excel sheet with this and the stats . |
|
| Fri May 01, 2009 4:05 pm |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Zeus,
I would of course be very happy to receive your Excel spreadsheet and your SA descriptions and rules on HE and MG for tank AI values.
Sounds like I am getting some consensus from you and Sharpe on ineffectiveness of lower caliber HE guns against infantry as compared to MGs. Before I fold on this issue, however, I think you should consider the following post by Bob Sutton, identified as an "expert" in this area, in response to a question asking him to rate the anti-infantry effectiveness of tank and APC mounted MGs versus tank main gun HE:
| Quote: | Tank and APC mounted machine guns were only for close range fighting. HE rounds were used as short range artillery to deal with pill boxes, antitank guns and other soft targets. A HE shell could kill dozens in one burst
The 20mm cannon on the Panzer was the major usage of the 20mm as a main tank gun. It only fired armored piercing rounds. The 20mm was a rapid fire weapon on the Panzer 2 and the Germans did use in Poland and France to break up infantry positions. The Germans did use the Panzer 2 in the USSR but it limited ability to deal with the Soviets tanks lead to it withdrawn and rebuilt to an antitank vehicle. Sherman and other us tank machine guns.
Here are most of the weapons used
M2 .50 Cal 1800 yard range
M1919 .30 Cal Machine 1,500 yd
German tank mounted machine guns
German MG 34 to MG 42 around 1100 Yards
British tank machine guns
Besa Machine gun .30 cal range over 1000 yards
Soviet tank mounted machine guns
Degtyaryov machine gun 7.62mm range 0ver 800 yards
Tank Gun ranges
German 20mm tank gun Range over 2000 yards
German 37mm tank gun range over 3000 Yards
German 50mm tank gun 2900 yards
German 75mm tank gun high velocity over 8000 yards
German 75mm tank gun low velocity around 6000 yards
German 88mm tank gun over 15000 yards
US 75 mm tank gun over 7000 yards
So using the Degtyaryov machine gun on Soviet tanks as a 1 with a range of 800 yards to the German 88mm with a range of 15000 yards as a 10.
1 being low 10 being most effective
Degtyaryov machine gun rank 1
Besa 1
M1919 1.4
M2 2
MG34 1
20mm 3
37mm 4
50mm 5
75 low velocity 6
75mm and 76mm high velocity 7
US 90mm 10
German 88mm 10
Soviet 85mm 9
These would be my ranking of the weapons.
|
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/2008/6/WW2-tank-anti-infantry.htm (posted 20 June 2008) (last visited 2 May 2009)(this site lists a number of related references)
Mr. Sutton says his qualifications are: | Quote: | | I work for Saint Petersburg College as a TRS or Technology resources specialist. I read 10 to 15 books a year on World War 2 and weapon systems. I also have a BA in History from USF. {University of South Florida, USA?} |
For what it is worth, he is rated highly by users of the web site "All experts."
As you can see, Mr. Sutton rates the 20mm, 37mm, 50mm, and 75mm low velocity HE as more lethal overall against infantry than the British, US, Soviet, and German MGs. He doesn't give a direct comparison of effectiveness at different range bands, but I think th implication is that MG was used only at "close range," whereas HE was used as "short range artillery" against pillboxes, antitank guns, and other soft targets.
Leaving aside the question whether Mr. Sutton qualifies as an expert, I am inclined to agree with him on this subject. At leas one piece of anecdotal evidence for the same proposition comes to mind. A commander of Char D-2s that were part of DeGaulle's thrust against Montcornet in May 1940 writes that a column of German motorcyle-mounted infantry was destroyed by the 47mm guns of his tanks near Chivres. He mentioned "our 47s," not the hull-mounted or coaxial MGs.
| Quote: | | The hull has a fixed 7.5 mm machine-gun low in the glacis on the right side. The commander is the sole occupant of the APX1 turret, acting also as gunner and loader for the 47 mm SA34 gun, which has a limited anti-tank capacity, and the optionally coaxial 7.5 mm Châtellerault machine-gun. The gun could fire two types of ammunition: a HE (High Explosive) called the Obus D with a shell weight of 1250 gramme and a muzzle velocity of 490 m/s; |
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Char_D2#2.
Sorry this post is so long, but the subject deserves serious attention.
_________________
HHRgamer
Last edited by HHRgamer on Sat May 02, 2009 7:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Sat May 02, 2009 6:55 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9280
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm interested to see a comprehensive set of AI guidelines based on the discussions and proposals up to now. I'm confident we'll soon start making vehicle cards.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat May 02, 2009 7:23 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
This is a conundrum. The only qualifications I have about Mr. Sutton is a question of circumstance. A 37mm shell at a pillbox or static position probably does better than a MG. Against moving infantry, I’m not so sure. We really have to draw a line before the complexity makes us nuts and ruins our vision.
At what range does Sutton judge the effectiveness of the weapons? I can’t imagine using a 37mm cannon against infantry 100m away if I had a MG34, but I’ve never been in that situation. I did read about an American platoon of TDs, when confronted by a company of German infantry, they lined up and used the MGs on them.
I do think the tank MGs have big visibility issues and should have a short (400m max) range.
I think 1000m should be top range for HE without a spotter.
A 50mm mortar round is as big as a hand grenade. A tank round of the same size or smaller will have less explosive power. It could kill a dozen men, but every time? Very often? Once in a while? Seldom? I’d guess less rather than more. The story about the French, well, I don’t discount it, but that was a pretty sweet target. On the other hand, first hand accounts say the Italian 47mm had an effective antipersonnel round.
The western Allies didn’t switch to higher velocity cannons because they weren’t killing enough infantry. It was to kill tanks. They kept a mix of low and high velocity cannons in the battalions, I assume, because the guns were complementary. The only deliberate use of TDs against infantry of which I’ve heard is as self-propelled artillery against static positions.
Similarly, the German 88 was used in bombardment situations against fixed targets. I’ve never read of it being employed the way the German 70mm or 150mm infantry guns were used.
I still think the low velocity guns should get the highest AI ratings. That was their job. Also, if we give too much AI value to antitank vehicles, their cost will be very high and their use ahistorical.
Sorry about the random thoughts, but I'm still thinking this through.
_________________
|
|
| Sat May 02, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
