:: :: FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Join! (free) :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::
AI Values
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> archive of old projects and contests -> Forumini Armies Old
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sharpe

 I'm Sharpe, dammit.


Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Likes received: 2

Posts: 8796
FLAGS




Post subject:  Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I think that in a given situation, we can posit that the tank will choose one weapon system and maximize its use of that.  Dividing their efforts wouldn't result in any greater effect, I believe.

The only wrinkle, as you astutely foresee, is point blank fire, especially versus cover.  I prefer KISS, but we could use an idea here.
_________________
PostMon Aug 24, 2009 3:47 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
In general, high velocity HE shells would be slightly less effective than low velocity HE shells due to the high velocity shells tending to bury themselves in the ground more. On the other hand, the high velocity HE shell would probably be more accurate, so in the end this probably evens out... This would mean that the barrel length doesn't matter that much.

What does matter for HE shells is the amount of explosive filler, which translates directly to power and size of the blast. I don't think we should look to calibre alone!

I also think that the basic dedicated close support vehicle, usually carrying a 75mm low velocity gun with around 0.7 kg of exlosive filler (like the Sherman M4A1, Panzer IV A-F1, T-34 and the 75mm in the B1 bis), should have a reasonable chance of taking out a 4/4 Soldier, even if they didn't have any MG's at all. This would mean 9/8/7 for these guns. If the vehicle does have MG's, this wouldn't add to this attack value - it's like throwing pebbles at something after already throwing a big rock!

You might remember though that I do think the main purpose of a vehicle's MG (other than the early idea of using them to sight the main gun) is close-up AI defense, and thus an MG in the turret or hull should give a vehicle the possibility of def fire against Soldiers. So having the MG still makes a big diff!

It's actually funny how this whole discussion made me somewhat of a proponent for separating a vehicle's HE and MG stats on the card (allowing an effect on cover for HE attacks among other things), and now the trend is to go back to one value  Smile .
PostMon Aug 24, 2009 6:09 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Separate MG and HE attack values.

Zeus, I still like the idea of separating the HE and MG attack stats, but I am afraid no one will have the time, inclination, and energy to get them figured out anytime soon.  Thus my suggestion to go with a simpler approach first, and let the separate stats be a future FA project.  If there are members who want to put in the time to develop the separate stats now, I suppose there could be parallel tracks. Any takers out there?  

    MG defensive fire
It seems we have general agreement that vehicle machine guns were used for defensive fire against infantry.  Sharpe, I would include the AAMG in this category, but if the leaders of the project are of a different opinion then so be it.  I would suggest that rather than using SAs, we should make defensive fire for MG-equipped vehicles a basic rule. The fire value may, like armor value, vary depending on where the MGs are located and where the target is located (e.g., a vehicle with only hull MG would only have defensive fire at targets straight ahead; a vehicle with hull MG and turret mounted MGs may have one number for straight ahead and another number for side and rear).   SAs could be used for really unusual configurations (perhaps rear turret, rear hull?).  This would avoid cluttering the card with too many SAs.    

    Close and short range AI fire.
There appears to be agreement that for some vehicles there was a meaningful choice in some situations between attacking infantry with MG(s) or HE.  Sharpe posits the choice applies to close range (point blank), but I think it also applies to short range, as defined in the post on page 3 of this thread.  For whatever range is agreed on, perhaps there is a way, per Sharpe's observation, to bring this choice to life without violating KISS.  The gun's HE value would be listed in the attack stats, and an SA would state that the player, for __ range attacks, can choose to use MGs at a value of ____, but in doing so will lose the -2 to cover that HE provides.

    HE values.
Zeus, this summer I started trying to look up the amount of explosive filler for the projectiles fired by various vehicles, but the more I read about the question the more important other factors also appeared to be:    the thickness of the shell, the material the shell was made of, the design or shape of the shell, whether the shell depended mainly on shrapnel or on the pure explosive effect (concussion?).  Even projectile velocity would seem to vary depending not only on the length of the barrel, but on the tightness of the fit (friction), the amount and type of propellant, and other factors.  

In theory one could develop a model based not only on explosive charge, but on a plethora of other factors. I question whether anyone at this point has the time or inclination to put the model out there, or to provide the statistical information which will be necessary to apply the model to each gun/projectile combination that occurs in the game.

Absent development of such a model, I think the most straightforward and KISS approach should be to assume that long barrel guns were high velocity and had relatively less effective HE, and short barrel guns were low velocity and had relatively more effective HE, all other factors being equal.  The rationale is that if a given gun was expected to be mainly used for AP (armor piercing) rather than HE, design compromises would be made in favor of AP.  The converse would also be true.  Exceptions, based on specific facts, could be adopted case by case.

    Next steps.
Thanks for the feedback.  I'll revise my proposed numbers for vehicles with 75mm guns once I get some direction from this discussion as it develops.  Once we get some numbers based on the WOTC conventions, it shouldn't be that hard to develop numbers for the FA variable ranges previously proposed. Then maybe we can get some proposed cards!  


.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostTue Aug 25, 2009 1:33 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: What should vehicle AI numbers represent? Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
In light of the comments from Zeus, Sharpe, and Buzzkill, I'd like to clarify the approach I took in the post dealing with vehicles carrying 75mm guns, to re-examine my assumptions about the basis for AAM's AI numbers, and to set out my view of what FA vehicle AI numbers should represent.  

   Clarification.
First, when I proposed alternative AI values for vehicles equipped with 75mm guns, I was assuming that AAM's AI values were based on a combination of main gun and MG values.  By combination, I mean that I thought AAM had used HE as the point of departure for the attack matrix values, and increased those values for vehicles that were also equipped with MGs.  I now believe that the AAM vehicle AI numbers are based on the main gun alone.  I also believe that, with a slight modification discussed below, this is a workable approach.  

    What is the basis of AAM vehicle AI values?
     
Marder v. Pz IVD--F1.

The Marder, with a 75L46 gun (and no MGs), gets a 6/5/4,
whereas the PzIVD--F1, with a 75L24 (& 2 MGs) gets a 7/7/6.    

The Marder was a tank destroyer, equipped with the same high-velocity anti-tank gun as used in the PAK 40. (http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bi/res.pl?keyword=Marder&offset=0)  The Pz IV, versions D-F1, were originally used as infantry support tanks, and equipped with a low velocity gun.  (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/hs/panzer4) 430m/s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV).  This difference in mission would in part explain why the barrel of the Marder's 75mm gun is almost twice as long as that of the Pz IV D.  Thus contrary to my first impression, it appears the difference in the AI values here is due, not to the presence of MGs on the Pz IV D, but to the difference between the two guns.  

Su-76 M v. Pz IVD

The Su-76 M, with a 76.2L41 gun & no MGs, gets a 7/7/6,
and the PzIVD--F1, with a 75L24 (& 2 MGs) also gets a 7/7/6.    

"The SU-76M combines three main battlefield roles: light assault gun, mobile anti-tank weapon and mobile gun for indirect fire." Main gun velocity for HE was 680 m/s (700 m/s with AP).  This is higher than that of the Pz IV D (430m/s), but still both guns are in the low velocity category.  Thus both guns get the same AI rating, and the presence of two MG's on the IV D makes no difference to that rating.

    What should FA vehicle AI values represent?

As suggested above, the AAM model (for vehicles, not AT guns) appears to be to base vehicle AI values on the main gun only. This makes sense for the reasons pointed out by Sharpe and Zeus.  The short time alloted to a phase (1 minute) would realistically encompass acquisition of the target, a decision on what weapon and ammunition to use, and firing.  Also, in most (but not all) cases, the main gun will have HE available and the value of that HE will be higher than the MG value.  The HE value will also provide a cost-free bonus of a -2 to the target's cover.  Thus a rough and ready approach would be for FA, like AAM, to ignore the vehicle MG, with the exception that FA would recognize the MG for defensive fire.

by contrast, Sharpe suggests a modification to this approach which would incorporate those situations in which the MG provides a higher attack value than HE.  This would be achieved by combining HE and MG values, but in a manner different from what I had proposed.  Rather than taking HE as a point of departure and adding points for MGs, Sharpe would evaluate the value of each weapon at each range and then plug into the chart the higher of the two values.  Thus, at close and short ranges, the AI value in the attack matrix would in some cases represent vehicle MGs rather than HE, whereas at medium and long ranges the value will always be the HE (because of the limited range of vehicle mounted MGs).  

I agree that FA rules should reflect the value of vehicle MG fire as an alternative attack method in the more common or significant situations where it would make sense to fire the MG instead of the main gun when attacking infantry.  However, I think the value of the MG in such situations can be reflected without including MG values in the attack matrix.  We should stick with the earlier decision that the values in the attack matrix should always represent the vehicle's main weapon, whatever it is.  

My alternative proposal is that for those vehicles possessing machine guns that provide a higher attack value at a given range than the  corresponding attack value of the main gun, there should be an SA providing as follows:  "Vehicle machine gun."  "When this vehicle attacks soldiers at _____[close, close or short] range, the player may choose to attack with value X [or values X/Y] rather than the value appearing in the attack matrix above.  Attacks using this special ability do not get the -2 to the target's cover roll." The main rules can make clear that this SA simply represents a crew decision to fire at soldiers with the vehicle MG(s) rather than the main gun.  

As to vehicle MG defensive fire, I think it is so common that it should not be an SA.  Instead, the card for each vehicle capable of defensive MG fire will have, in the upper left hand portion, the defensive fire values (X/Y/--, or X/---) superimposed over the icons for the MGs that are present on that vehicle.  

Comments, anyone?  

Next step: propose revised 75mm gun stats based on HE value alone.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostMon Aug 31, 2009 2:22 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Proposed Vehicle AI values, ver. 2.0 Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Proposed Vehicle AI Values, ver. 2.0
                                 (9.07.09)

1.  Objective and general approach
The objective of version 2 is to develop a more historical set of vehicle anti-infantry (anti-soldier) values than in AAM, but without introducing the level of complexity that would be necessary to separately represent all of each vehicle's anti-infantry weapons.  Thus version 2 generally assumes the vehicle will attack soldiers with either the main gun or a machine gun, whichever is the more effective weapon in a given situation.  Exceptions, indicated by an SA, will provide for player choice in those situations in which the MG would give a higher attack number.  Such attacks do not get the benefit of the -2 to cover that applies to attacks by the main gun.  Vehicle MGs, but not the main gun, may be used for defensive fire against soldiers.

 
2.  Main gun
The AI (Anti-Infantry) values in the attack matrix on each vehicle card will reflect the main gun's values, regardless of whether the vehicle's main gun is a large caliber gun, an autocannon, or a machine gun.    

If the main gun is capable of firing high explosive ammunition, an appropriate icon or notation ("HE" or an image of an explosion) will appear next to the infantry icon on the left side of the attack matrix.  All vehicles which have a "High Explosive" icon (or notation) next to the infantry icon in the attack matrix will have the "High Explosive" capability, as follows:  "When this vehicle attacks enemy soldiers with its main gun, the the target gets -2 to its cover roll." Only the icon or notation will appear on the card, thus avoiding repetitive clutter of what is in effect a standard SA.  

Certain large guns with HE ability will also receive the "Blast" SA as follows:  

    SA:  "Blast — When this unit attacks, make a separate attack    
    roll against each unit in the target hex. (This includes friendly
     units.)"

This language will appear on the cards of the affected vehicles.

3.  MG attacks--SA.
 
For those instances in which a vehicle is equipped with machine guns that provide a higher attack value at a given range than the  corresponding attack value of the main gun, the vehicle card will carry the following SA:

         "Vehicle machine gun."  "When this vehicle attacks soldiers at _____[close, close or short] range, the player may choose to attack with value W [or values W/X] rather than the value appearing in the attack matrix above.  Attacks using this special ability do not get the -2 to the target's cover roll."

This SA simply represents a crew decision to fire at soldiers with the vehicle MG(s) rather than the main gun.  

4.  MG defensive fire.
The card for each vehicle capable of defensive MG fire will have, in the upper left hand portion, an appropriate MG icon. Vehicles can only use MG defensive fire against soldiers when the vehicle is in plain terrain.  When the vehicle is in terrain that blocks line of sight (L/O/S), it cannot engage in defensive fire against infantry. This is based on the historical vulnerability of armor to close assault in forests and cities.

5.  MG Ranges.
Ranges and their corresponding alpha symbols are as follows:  

   W    close      (same hex) (100 yds max) all MGs
    X    short      (1-2 hexes) (200 yds max) all MGs
    Y    medium  (3-5 hexes) (500 yds max) all except hull MG    
    Z    long        (6-8 hex)   (800 yds max) only AAMG, TTMG (turret top, cupola or pintle mounted)

Note: vehicle MG's at medium and long range may be irrelevant if the HE values of the main gun end up being greater.  If this turns out to be correct, we will be back to Sharpe's proposed principle #4 above:  "MG's don't count over 200m."

6. Values generally.
Vehicle AI values should be calculated in relation to the probability that the weapon used (MG or HE) will destroy or disrupt a standard infantry unit, rated 4/4.  The target soldiers are assumed to be using caution and taking advantage of any available cover.  Thus the AI values, and corresponding probabilities of inflicting destruction (kill) or disruption, are, with acknowledgments to Sharpe, as follows:  

   10+ = very probable kill
     9   = probable kill
     8   = probable kill or disruption
     7   = less probable kill, more probable disruption
     6   = improbable kill, less probable disruption
     5   = very improbable kill, slight disrupt
     4   = unlikely disrupt


7.  MG Values.
Vehicle MG values will be lower than corresponding infantry MG values because of the gunner's more limited visibility from the vehicle's periscope or firing slit, and because of the vehicle's motion.

Just as armor values vary by location of impact [per Neural Dream's post], vehicle defensive fire values will vary.  For the sake of simplicity and playability, each vehicle's total defensive fire capability will be expressed by a line of values (W/X/-- or W/--) for targets directly in front of the vehicle and another line of values value for targets to the side or rear.  

Typically the "front" line of values will represent fire by the front hull MG, if any, plus whatever other MGs could historically fire simultaneously to the front (e.g., the CoAx, a cupola mounted MG, a pintle mounted MG, or an AAMG). The  "side and rear" line of values will represent fire by whatever MGs could simultaneously fire at targets in other directions.  Defensive fire from vehicles with unusual MG or crew configurations (rear turret MG, rear hull MG) can be represented by separate lines for "rear" and or SAs.

Thus the AI defensive fire value of a vehicle with only a hull MG against a target directly in front of the vehicle would be expressed by "front" and a series of numbers, slashes, and blanks superimposed over the MG icon appearing on the upper left of the card, as follows:  "Front:  6/4/--/--." The vehicle has a DF value of 6 against soldier targets directly in front of it in the same hex, and a DF value of 4 against soldier targets one or two hexes directly in front.  The vehicle has no DF capability against soldier targets to the side or rear, so the next line would be "Side/rear:  --."

[Specific proposed values to be posted later]

8.  HE Values.
To distinguish the various vehicle main guns, the following factors may be considered:  barrel length, velocity, explosive charge.

A prompt and comprehensive examination of all factors with regard to the HE effect of all vehicle main guns is beyond the capacity of the author, and, apparently, the forum.  However, it seems likely that the lower velocity and shorter barreled guns will generally have higher HE value for close and short ranges.  Higher velocity and longer barreled guns may have higher HE values for medium and long ranges, because of the increased accuracy at these ranges, and no diminution of HE effect upon impact at range (unlike AP which has less penetration at longer ranges).

I plan to post specific proposed HE values for various 75mm vehicle mounted main guns shortly, and would be glad to receive comments and suggestions.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostMon Sep 07, 2009 5:19 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Angel of Death

 

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Likes received: 1

Posts: 2005
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Looking forward to the HE gun values.
Part 7 (MG's) didnt process to well in my mind. But its late and I just drove 500 km today so maybe its just my mind.
_________________
PostMon Sep 07, 2009 10:03 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I admit part 7, MG values, is a bit rough. I didn't drive 600 km before writing it, but I was perhaps suffering from the effects of manual labor from the day before.

The idea is to come up with two sets of values that will appear on the face of the card:  One for MG defensive fire against targets in front of the vehicle, and one for MG defensive fire against targets located in any other direction.  To the extent that more than one MG could realistically (based on layout, crew assignments) made DF simultaneously, that ability would be figured into the appropriate line of values.  

For example, if a vehicle had a front hull MG and a cupola MG (on top of a turret), and different crew members were assigned to operate each, then the values would assume that both MGs could DF simultaneously.  The "front" value of such a vehicle might be something like "6/5/---," whereas a vehicle with the same hull MG and no additional MG might be something like "5/4/----."  This is not a huge difference, but enough to be significant over time.  

Does this make more sense?
_________________
HHRgamer
PostThu Sep 10, 2009 1:52 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
This is a bump to refer interested parties to my 8 November 2009 post on the Tiger I and Tiger II thread in the FA vehicles subfolder.  

The post discusses possible theoretical underpinnings of a method for deriving vehicle anti infantry values based on the main gun's high explosive, rather than on machine gun fire. The post is there because it is prompted by Neural Dream's query on that thread, "how does one stat HE?"

There seems to be a reasonable way to calculate HE's "blast effect" (concussion, or blowing things up) based on percentage of the HE projectile which consists of explosive charge.  There also seems to be a way in which to estimate the "fragmentation effect" (area within which fragments from an exploded projectile are lethal to personnel).  

For FA purposes, it appears to me that we should stick to the blast effect to keep things simple.  The MG defensive fire option and limited MG direct fire SA (instead of firing HE--discussed above) may make fragmentation redundant, or so marginal as not to be worth the extra complication.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
_________________
HHRgamer
PostTue Nov 10, 2009 2:28 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Numbers!  ('Smile')

Here are some formulas and some resulting anti-soldier values for vehicle-mounted guns firing high explosive, as well as for auto-cannon and for ground-mounted guns.  I would welcome suggestions for changes to the formulas, as well as data that is missing.

First, for vehicle mounted guns firing high explosives, here is a suggested formula for establishing short range anti-soldier high explosive values:  

       Short range anti-soldier value (SS) =
gun caliber in centimeters
+/- "caliber scaling factor"
+/- type factor
+/- explosive charge factor
+/- muzzle velocity factor
+/- miscellaneous factor.

Caliber scaling factor

       < 75mm      + .5 (7.5-caliber of gun in cms)
      > or = 75mm, < or = 77mm   +1
      > 77mm       +1 -.5 (caliber of gun in cms – 7.5)

Rationale:

Caliber number.  AAM and many other established miniature wargaming systems derive their base attack or fire values in whole or in part from the caliber of the main gun. E.g., Rapid Fire (http://www.rapid-fire.uk.com/rules.htm#points) Command Decision IV--Test of Battle (http://testofbattle.com/drupal-4.7.4/node/4 ),  Ambush Alley (http://ambushalleygames.com/vehicle_rules_update.html )
   
Scaling caliber number.  Adding 1 to the caliber of 75mm guns in cms leads to short range base anti-soldier values which are consistent with those suggested by Zeus and Sharpe, not radically different from appropriate AAM and HHR values, and appear to be realistic.  If this same approach is applied across the board to larger and smaller caliber main guns, however, the resulting values are so high or low as to appear unrealistic and distort play balance.  Thus it is necessary to compress other main gun values toward the 75/76mm mid-point.  There is probably a fancy mathematical way to express this, but the rough and ready method above should suffice for now.  
   

examples of application of caliber scaling factor

37mm         3.7 + .5 (7.5-3.7) = 5.6          
47mm             4.7 + .5 (7.5 – 4.7) = 6.1
75mm        7.5 + 1 = 8.5
76mm        7.6 + 1 = 8.6
88mm        8.8 +1 – .5 (8.8 – 7.5) = 9.1
105mm       10.5 + 1 - .5 (10.5 – 7.5) = 11.5 – 1.5 = 10
150mm           15   + 1 - .5 (15 – 7.5) = 16 – 3.75 = 12.25
210mm           21 + 1 - .5 (21 – 7.5) = 22 - .5 (13.5) =15.25


Type factor:
        non-vehicle mounted guns             +.5        
        Infantry tanks (infantry support)       0
        SP guns                                         -1.0
        Tank (primarily anti-tank role)        -1.0
        Tank Destroyers                            -3.0
       
       Rationale:

        Non-vehicle mounted guns.  These guns provide a
        better view of the target and a more stable platform
        than vehicle-mounted guns.  Thus same caliber gun
        should, all other factors being equal, be more effective
        when fired from a ground-mounted gun than from a
        vehicle.

        Inf. tanks are intended for AI role, and thus it can be
        assumed gun and vehicle design compromises are
        made in favor of that role.

        SP guns are? (any ideas?—see values below)

        Tanks are intended for anti-tank or combined anti-tank
         and anti-soldier role.

        Tank Destroyers are intended for anti-tank role.    
       

Explosive charge factor:
        Wt < .5 Kg                                      -.5
        Wt > .5 Kg, <.75 Kg                          0
        Wt > .75 Kg.                                  +.5
        Per Zeus, greater weight of explosive charge should
        mean more effect against soldiers and buildings.  Data
        on this is hard to find, and I do not have it for all guns
        listed below.

Muzzle velocity factor:
        Velocity < 600 meters/second       +.5
        Velocity > 600 m/s, < 800 m/s          0
        Velocity > 800 m/s                         -.5
        Per forum comments, higher velocity HE projectiles are
        more likely to get buried rather than explode at
        optimal level.

Miscellaneous factor:
        + or - based on other factors (vehicle or gun-specific)
         There may be specific defects or advantages not
          included in the other factors which should be
          considered.  Unlike some WOTC designers, I do not
          think the "iconic" status of a vehicle or gun, or the
          identity of the nation which used the vehicle or gun,
          should boost its fire value.


    Second, the values for middle, long, and extended range high explosive anti-soldier values can be derived from the short-range values using the following formula:  

Middle range (MS) attack value = short range value (SS) – 1
Long range (LS) attack value = SS – 2
Extended range (ES?) attack value = SS – 3

Rationale:  
There is no separate "to hit" roll in FA.  The attack value therefore incorporates both the probability of a hit and the probability of a hit doing any appreciable damage.  While accuracy of all rounds generally goes down with distance, the explosive power of the HE round does not. Therefore the total value goes down by only 1 point at each range band. By contrast, AP values may decline by 2 for each range band, because both probability of a hit and probability of a hit doing with increasing range.  

Results are expressed in AAM conventional terms so we can get a fair comparison.  Once formulas are agreed, they can be converted into specific values fitting the flexible ranges established in FA.

________________________________________________

Application of formulas to vehicle mounted guns:
________________________________________________
Infantry tanks:
Souma S-35  
4.7 [cm] + .5 (7.5 – 4.7) [scaling] + 0 [type] -.5 [chge] +.5 [vel]= 4.7 + 1.4 + 0 -.5 + .5 = 6.1
      SS = 6.1 Round to 6.
      MS = 6-1=5
      LS = 6-2=4
      Overall proposed values = 6/5/4
      Compare:  AAM 6/6/4, HHR 6/6/4, Tom 7/7/6 (Tom Servo of old AAM boards).

Char B-1 Bis (turret only), Char D-2  
       4.7 cm.  Same as 47mm on Souma above =6
       6/5/4
       Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 7/7/6, Tom 9/7/5

Pz III
       5.0 [cm] + .5(7.5-5.0) + 0 [type] +/-? [unknown vel &
       chge]=
       5.0 + 1.75 = 6.75
       7/6/5
       Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 7/7/6.

Char B-1 Bis (casemate)
      7.5 [cm] + 1 [cal. scale] +0 [type] +0 [chge] +.5 [vel] = 9
      9/8/7
      Compare:  AAM 8/7/5, HHR 8/7/6, T 9/9/8, Z 9/8/7
      (Zeus).

Pz IV D
     7.5 [cm] +1 [cal. scale] +0 [type] +0 [chge] +.5 [vel] = 9
     9/8/7
     Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 9/9/7, S 8/7/6 (Sharpe),
     T 9/9/8, Z 9/8/7.

Sherman M4A1, & Chaffee (M-3 gun)
     7.5 [cm] + 1 [cal. s.f.] +0 [type] +0 [chge] + .5 [vel.] = 9
     9/8/7
     Compare:  AAM 9/9/7, HHR 9/9/7, S 9/8/7, T 9/9/8,
     Z 9/8/7
________________________________________________                          
Tanks (anti-tank or dual role)

PzIV F2, G
      7.5 [cm] +1 [scale] - 1 [type] + .5 [chge] +.5[vel] = 8.5.
      Round up to 9.
       9/8/7
       Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 7/7/6, Z 9/8/7.

BT-7A
      7.6 [cm] + 1 [cal.s.f.] -1 [type] + 0 [chg] + 0 [vel] = 7.6.
      (Round up to 8).
       8/7/6
       Compare:  AAM9/9/7, HHR 9/9/7

T-34/76
       7.6 [cm] +1 [cal.s.f.] -1 [type] + 0 [chge] +0 [vel] = 7.6.
       Round up to 8.
       8/7/6
       Compare:  AAM7/7/6, HHR 9/9/7, Z 9/8/7

M4A3E8 Sherman
       7.6 [cm] +1 [cal.s.f.] -1 [type] -.5 [chge] -.5 [vel.] = 6.6.
       Round up to 7.
        7/6/5
        Compare:  AAM7/7/6, HHR 7/7/6, T 7/7/6

Panther D & G
        7.5 [cm] +1 [cal. s.f.] -1 [type] -.5 [chge] -.5 [vel.]=6.5.  
         Round up to 7.
         7/6/5
         Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 7/7/6, T 7/7/6

Tiger I
          8.8 [cm] +1 - .5 (8.8-7.5) -1 [type] +.5[chge] +0 [vel.]
   .8 - .65 – 1 + .5 = 8.65  Round to 9?
          9/8/7
          Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 7/7/6
________________________________________________
SP guns
SU-76 M
          7.6 + 1 [cal.s.f.] -1 [type] + .5 [chge] +0 [vel.] = 8.1.  
          Round down to 8.
          8/7/6
          Compare:  AAM 7/7/6, HHR 9/9/7, S 4/7/6

sIG 33
         15.0 [cm] +1 -.5 (15 – 7.5)[cal. s.f.] -1 [type] + .5
          [chge] + .5 [vel]=
  16 -3.75 -1 + .5 + .5 = 12.25
          Round to 12.
          12/11/10
           Compare:  AAM 9/9/7, HHR 9/9/7

Brumbar
          15.0 [cm] +1 -.5 (15 – 7.5)[cal. s.f.] -1 [type] + .5 [chge] + .5 [vel] = 12.25
           12/11/10
            Compare:  AAM 9/9/7, T 9/9/8.  
________________________________________________

Tank destroyers

Marder II (A, B, C) (same gun as PAK 40)
           7.5 + 1 [Cal.s.f.] - 3 [type] +0 [chge] +.5 [vel.] = 6
            6/5/4
            Compare:  AAM 6/5/4, HHR 6/6/4, T 6/6/5

Jagdpanzer IV (same gun as PAK 40)
           7.5 + 1 [cal.s.f.] -3 [type] +0 [chge] + .5 [vel.] = 6
           6/5/4
           Compare: AAM 5/5/4, HHR 5/5/4, T 6/6/5

Archer 17 pounder Mk II
           7.6 + 1 [cal.s.f.] -3 [type] +.5 [chge] - .5 [vel] = 5.6 Round up to 6.
           6/5/4
           Compare:  AAM 5/5/4, T 6/6/5

________________________________________________

Application of forumla to Non vehicle mounted guns
(note the +.5 type adjustment for ground mounted guns)  
________________________________________________
Infantry guns, artillery
       
leIG18 (Ger) (June 1930)
     7.5 +1 [cal.] + .5[type] + 0 [chge] + .5 [vel.] = 9.5    
              round to 10?
      10/9/8
      Compare HHR 9/9/8, T 9/9/8.

105mm (U.S. M2A1 & Ger. Le FH 18)
      10.5 +1 - .5(10.5 – 7.5) + .5 [type] +.5 [chge] + .5
               [vel] =
11.5 – 1.5 + 1.5 = 11.5
12/11/10
Compare S 9/8/7 (extended ranges, -1 to soldier
                cover rolls), T 9/9/8.

150mm
15 + 1 - .5(15-7.5) + .5 [type] + .5 [chge] + .5 [vel]
16 -3.75 + 1.5 = 13.75
14/13/12
Compare S 10/9/8 (extended ranges, -1 to soldier
                cover rolls), T 9/9/8 (for 155mm)
______________________________________________
Anti-tank guns
PAK 40 (Ger.) (Nov. 1941) 75L46
7.5 + 1 + .5 [type] + 0 [chge] + .5 [vel] = 9.5
               round to 10.
10/9/8
Compare AAM 3/3/3, HHR 3/3/3 (assuming no HE
               ammo), T 7/7/6.

17 pounder (UK) (Jan. 43) 76.2mm
7.6 + 1 + .5 [type] + .5 [chge] - .5 [vel] = 9.1
9/8/7
Compare AAM 3/3/3, HHR 3/3/3 (assuming no
                       HE ammo), T 7/7/6.

3 Inch gun (US) (M5, Dec. 1941) 76L50
7.6 +1 +.5 [type] + .5 [chge] -.5 [vel] = 9.1
9/8/7
Compare AAM 3/3/3, HHR 3/3/3 (assuming no
                       HE ammo), T 5/5/4.
______________________________________________

Auto-cannon
       The caliber scaling needs to be significantly different for these guns.  I have derived the following formula through trial and error:  
        caliber (cm) + 6

CA mle 1938 (Fr)    20L60
  2.0 + 6 = 8
8/8/6
compare:  ND 8/8/6 (Neural Dream)

Flak 30 (Ger) 20mm
2.0 + 6 = 8
8/8/6
           compare AAM 9/8/7 (Flak 38), ND 8/8/6, T. 9/8/7.

Bofors 40mm AA
4.0 + 6.0 = 10
10/10/9
Compare:  AAM 11/10/9, ND 7/9/7, T 11/10/9.

('Very Happy')Happy Holidays!
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSat Dec 19, 2009 7:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Angel of Death

 

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Likes received: 1

Posts: 2005
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Wow... happy holidays too.

I'll try to digest this over the next few days.
I recently obtained an encyclopedia of german arms and artillery (featuring captured equipment too, thus lots of UK, Russian and a lot of minor country equipment is in there too). If needed I can supply raw data.
_________________
PostSat Dec 19, 2009 9:32 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Yes, AOD, the raw data is very much needed, especially on weight of HE explosive charges and muzzle velocity of HE projectiles.  It is time-consuming to dig out this information on the Internet.  Books such as the one you mention are probably a much better source.  I don't have them, and I am about worn out with digging through Internet sources.

For the table above, it would be good if you or anyone else with the data could inform me of any mistakes as to the weight of the HE charge, the HE muzzle velocity, the "type" of the vehicle or weapon, or anything else.  

Data on the weight of the HE explosive charge are needed for the following:  

Tiger I and II.  From the total weight of the HEAT round (7.6 kg) I am guessing the explosive charge of the HE round is  over .75 kg, but may be wrong.

150mm artillery
3 inch gun (U.S. M5)
French 47mm L 30 (Char B-1 turret, Souma, Char #-2)
Pz III
Comet 77L49
Jagdpanzer IV (70) 75L70


I need HE muzzle velocity for:

150mm artillery
Pz III (short 50mm gun)
BT-7A
Comet 77L49
Jagdpanzer IV (70) 75L70

If the above formula, or some variation, is to be applied to the guns not listed above, we will need both weight of HE explosive charge and HE muzzle velocity for those guns.

Do you think that ground-mounted anti-tank guns should have a -1 for "type factor," just as do vehicle mounted tank destroyers?  The +.5 for ground mounting would still apply.

Once we get this sorted, I would like to look again at the vehicle-mounted MG data.  If the MG would be the more effective anti-solider weapon for any vehicle at a given range, the vehicle card needs to have a special ability stating that the player may choose to fire the MG instead of the main gun, but would forego the -1 (or -2?) to cover.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSun Dec 20, 2009 5:52 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Thanks for this incredible amount of work!

The numbers for tanks and TD's seem fine to me.

I think the numbers for assault guns (ie sIG) come up a little too high - remember that these are not even the biggest ones, as we will at some point have to deal with the Petard mortar of the Churchill AVRE and the Nebelwerfers, Katyusha, Sturmtiger and other rocket types (up to 300mm). As these guns will also have Blast and/or Bombardment equivalents increasing their AI performance, I would say that the average 150mm gun should come to 11/10/9, leaving 10/9/8 for the average 105mm gun.

I'm not sure whether non-vehicle mounted guns should get a bonus... I can agree with the better view as opposed to a buttoned up tank (although the difference with the usually open assault guns is a lot less profound), but I don't think that a gun carriage provides a much more stable platform than a vehicle (vehicles in AAM are presumed to not be moving while firing). Also, from a tank I can afford to take my time aiming, being pretty much invulnerable to small arms fire, while a stationary gun crew is about the most vulnerable unit on the battlefield.

I'm by no means suggesting to take all these small factors into account and polute your formula, but rather to simply remove the "non-vehicle mounted" from it  Smile .

As for your HE ammo questions, I think I can answer some from my notes (I never really kept track of where the info came from, assuming it to be correct if a number of different sources agree on it; much ammo info however came from tarrif.net, which when crosschecked with other sources often seems to have it right).

The Tiger I had an incendiary shrapnel shell with 0.97kg explosive filler. I seem to remember the Tiger II used the same one (but I don't know the source).

Acc. to my notes, the Somua and B1 bis had the 47mm SA-35 L/32 in their turret, for which an HE shell with 0.142kg of HE filler was available, with an mv of 590m/s.

The Panzer III obviously had a number of different guns during its lifetime. Acc. to my notes:
-- 3.7cm KwK 36 L/46.5: HE shell with 0.025kg HE filler (mv 680m/s)
-- 5cm KwK 39 L/60: HE shell with 0.165kg HE filler (mv 550m/s)
-- 5cm KwK 38 L/42: no data, but presumably the same as the later KwK 39, but with a slightly lower mv
-- 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24: same as in the earlier Panzer IV versions (A through F1)

The StuK 42 L/70 in the Jagdpanzer IV/70 was balistically (and probably completely for that matter) the same as the KwK 42 L/70 in the Panther (0.61kg HE filler, mv 700m/s)

There were a number of 150mm artillery pieces used by almost all combatants, so you'll have to be a little more specific  Smile .

I haven't gotten to late war units yet in my own rules, so I don't have any data on the Comet  Razz . Also, I never heard of the BT-7A with a 76mm gun, so you'll have to enlighten me what it is!

Finally, I think AT guns, like tank destroyers, should get a penalty at least. it's hard to find data on all guns, but most AT guns were dedicated to the AT role, so unless sources specifically mention how a certain AT gun was used (successfully) in the infantry support role, I wouldn't stat them too high. They will usually be included in an army for their AT stats anyway, so having players "pay" for AI stats they don't want and will not often use might also be unfair. of course, you can always give AT guns that were indeed used in an infantry support role if required, an ability allowing it one or a limited number of HE shells.
PostTue Dec 22, 2009 7:46 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Angel of Death

 

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Likes received: 1

Posts: 2005
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Note that my books is about infantry guns. They sometimes do the guns on tanks, but only due to them being infantry guns also.

Still, Google is my friend :

Tiger I and II 88mm HE shells (derived from the Flak):
http://www.efour4ever.com/88.htm


The book uses 9,4 KG for the later 88mm HE rounds (1021 m/sec muzzle velocity)

Doesnt say much about the explosive charge though.
Nor does its US equivalent.

---------------

150mm Howitzer info :
Book gives an average of 43,5 kg for the ammo for these. No info on the filler. The 155mm HE ammo of US guns is 43 kg though, and has 6.86 kg TNT filler. So that looks similar.

---------------
Quote:
47mm SA34 L/30
Used in the Renault D1, D2 and B1
Theoretical rate of fire : 15 rpm
Telescopic sight : 4x (L.671 sight, field of view 11.25°, V reticle, adjustable drum up to 1100m for the shells and 1600m for the coaxial MG)
Practical AT range : 400m

Ammunition :
Obus de rupture Mle1892G (APHE)
Caliber : 47x139R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.480 kg (50 g explosive)
Length of projectile : 181.5mm
V° = 450 m/s

Obus explosif type D (HE)
caliber : 47x139R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.250 kg
V° = 490 m/s

Obus explosif type B (steel) Mle1932 (HE)
caliber : 47x139R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.410 kg (142 g explosive)
Length of projectile : 183mm
V° = 480 m/s


47mm SA35 L/32
Used in the Renault ACG1, Renault D2, B1bis (turret gun) and Somua S35 tanks.
Theoretical rate of fire : 15 rpm (6 rpm in a B1bis turret in accurate aiming, could drop to 2-4 rpm in combat)
Telescopic sight :
• 4x (L.724 sight, field of view 11.25°, V and later + reticle, range drum up to 1500m for the AP shells and 1600m for the coaxial MG) for the APX1 turret
• 4x (L.762 sight, field of view 11.81°, + reticle, range drum up to 1500m for the AP shells and 1600m for the coaxial MG) for the APX4 turret
• There might be a L.731 sight for the APX1 CE turret (Somua S35) but there is no information about it at the moment.
• There might be a different scope in the APX2 turret (ACG1 light tank)? But since it is a cavalry tank it may eventually have the same one as for the Somua S35 tank.
Practical AT range : 800-1000m

Ammunition :

Obus de rupture Mle1935 (APC)
Caliber : 47x193R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.620 kg (sometimes 1.625 kg is indicated)
Length of projectile : 145mm (length of the case : 193mm and total length of the shell : 325mm)
V° = 660 m/s (sometimes 680 m/s is indicated)

Obus explosif Mle1932 (HE)
Caliber : 47x193R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.410 kg (142g explosive)
Length of projectile : 183mm
V° = 590 m/s


Canon de 47mm L/50 Mle1937 (SA37)
Caliber : 47x380R mm
Crew : 1 NCO + 5 men
Weight : 1,050 – 1,150kg (depending from type of wheels and carriage manufacturer)
Length : 3,95m (firing position) / 4.10m (moving configuration)
Width : 3.70m (firing position) / 1.62m (moving configuration)
Height : 1.21m (firing position) / 1.10m (moving configuration)
Weight : 300kg
Barrel length : 2,393m (1,90m rifling)
Rate of fire : 15-20 rpm
Traverse : 68° (1 wheel turn = 1°5 in traverse)
Elevation : -13° to +16.30° (1 wheel turn = 1°4 in elevation)
Telescopic sight : 4x (L.748 telescopic sight, field of view 10.13°, + reticle, adjustable drum up to 3,500m)
Emergency sight : 200 to 800m by increment of 200m
V° : 855 m/s
Practical AT range : 1,000m (maximum range of 6,500m)
Accuracy : 65 x 150cm at 1,600m and 41 x 63cm at 1,000m.
Penetration : 106mm/0° at 100m ; 89mm/0° at 500m ; 72mm/0° at 1,000m ; 57mm/0° at 1,000m [another source specifies hardened/cemented armor and gives 92.5mm/0° at 100m ; 77mm/0° at 500m].

Obus de rupture Mle1936 (APCBC) - in German service : Pzgr 178(f) -
Caliber : 47x380R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.726 kg (1.710 kg without ballistic cap)
Length of projectile : 192 mm (APC 144.5mm + BC 92mm, total length of the shell : 555.5mm)
V° = 855 m/s

Obus explosif Mle1932 M39 (HE) - in German service : Pzgr 181(f) -
Caliber : 47x380R mm
Weight of projectile : 1.410 kg (142g explosive)
V° = 590 m/s
Modified Mle1932 HE projectile, usually with a Gaba Mle1932 fuze.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=112&t=154362
---------------


---------------
3 inch M5 gun wiki has the needed information :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_inch_Gun_M5


On the Comet's 77mm HV :
http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/british_guns5.html


2 kinds of ammo :

APCBC Shot, Mk. 8T  
7.71 kg
792 m/s muzzle vel.

APDS Shot, SVDS,
Mk. 1T  
3.46 to 3.71 kg
1,120 m/s muzzle vel.


Last bit today (and probably for more then a week) :

An analysis of different ammo types, HE round weight, High Explosive filling, and.. their effects.
http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm
_________________
PostTue Dec 22, 2009 5:26 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Zeus:
   Yes, this was a lot of work.  I am not a gun expert or an HE expert, but I suppose I've had to learn something about both subjects.  Perhaps members will understand why it took me months to put up some numbers.  
   I am inclined to agree with you about the "type factor" for assault guns, AT guns, and ground mounted guns.  I will have to play with the formula a bit and post revised values and see what members think.  
    Thanks for the details on the Tiger, Souma, Pz III, and Jagdpanzer.  As to the 150mm not being specific, I plead guilty.  I was running out of steam when I got to the ground mounted guns.  
    The BT-7A with a 76mm gun was the "artillery support version" of the "fast tank" BT-7.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_tank.  The AAM BT-7 card says it was a "superior cavalry tank," so I suppose it is talking about the 45mm gun versions (BT-5, BT-7) rather than the artillery support version.  I may retain the BT-7A references but will for sure insert references to the BT-7 in the appropriate section (infantry tank?)

AOD:
   Thanks for the cite to the article at the end of your post.  It deals directly with Neural Dream's seminal question of a year ago:  "how does one stat an HE gun?"  However, I am a bit confused by "Table 2" in the article.  What does ""HE % Weight" mean?   I could understand "%" or "weight," but what does the juxtaposition mean?  By saying the 76.2mm QF HE shell has a weight of 17 pounds and a "HE % Weight" of "11.3" is it saying the HE charge is 11.3% of the shell weight (i.e. 11.3% of 17 pounds = 1.92 pounds)?  
    Thanks also for the  US 155 explosive filler figure and the quote from David Lehmann's post on the Axis History forum.  On the U.S. 3 inch gun, I had missed the HE charge weight in the Wiki article, so thanks for pointing it out.  
   As to the Comet, the article only cites to Armor-Piercing Capped with Ballistic Cap (APCBC) and Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) ammunition.  Does this mean the Comet had no high explosive (HE) ammunition?  

Everyone:  
   Not a creature is stirring and it is time for me to pay some attention to the holiday.  Back in a few days.  Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!  Ho, Ho, Ho! 'Very Happy'
_________________
HHRgamer
PostThu Dec 24, 2009 10:44 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Angel of Death

 

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Likes received: 1

Posts: 2005
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
HHRgamer wrote:
However, I am a bit confused by "Table 2" in the article.  What does ""HE % Weight" mean?   I could understand "%" or "weight," but what does the juxtaposition mean?  By saying the 76.2mm QF HE shell has a weight of 17 pounds and a "HE % Weight" of "11.3" is it saying the HE charge is 11.3% of the shell weight (i.e. 11.3% of 17 pounds = 1.92 pounds)?


Thats how I read it too. They have a little example below the chart (about the 4,5" only having 3.8 lbs of explosives in the shells) which goes with that math too.

p.s.
The 17 pounder had 2 versions of High Explosive ammo (suggestion in the article is that it is used for the 77mm type of gun too) :

Quote:

The gun mounted on the Comet tank had a smaller breech block to enable it to be fitted inside the turret and cartridges from the 3" AA gun were used. The weapon fired the same projectiles as the regular 17pdr but as the cartridge was different the ammunition was not interchangeable, although the same calibre as the 17pdr the gun was named the 77mm HV in order to prevent confusion over ammunition supplies. The smaller cartridge meant a lower muzzle velocity and thus a decrease in performance compared with a regular 17pdr.

17 pdr/77mm Projectiles
Nature and Mark Length Body Diameter Diameter over driving band Projectile weight Bursting charge
High Explosive 1.T 11.16" 2.99" 3.155" 15.4lb 1.28lb
High Explosive 2.T 9.28" 2.99" 3.155" 13.34lb 1.08lb

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/inde...;catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58


_________________
PostSat Dec 26, 2009 7:12 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6



   Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » archive of old projects and contests -> Forumini Armies Old

 
Jump to:  
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
Editor's Choice
Forumini Generals
All AAM cards
All AAAF Cards
All War At Sea Cards
Forumini Admirals
A20 World Rankings
1. Jcmonson 1066
1. Bean965 1038
3. Vergilius 1024
WAS World Rankings
1. Admiral Wannabee 1240
2. mnnorthstars 1170
3. Azrael 1120
AAM World Rankings
1. Lil Snips 1096
2. Tripwire 1021
3. Kawolski 1010
Friends
Official WoTC site
Richard Baker's new Blog
Le Forum de A&ANM
Riverside Gaming
A&A Underground
Top posters
Brigman 42738
weedsrock2 36854
Flakstruk 35335
RAEVSKI 26750
firesdstny 26685
Asbestos 24554
SWO_Daddy 23223
Solomiranthius 19325
NeuralDream 18234
nrnstraswa 17161
herky80 16512
Lt_V 16301
jfkziegler 15353
Swished3 14762
carrion 14490
LcdrSwizzle 13698
packertim 13611
DaJudge 13360
mnnorthstars 12784
The_lucky_Y 12511
danaussie 12161
Shinnentai 11688
hokiepastor 10867


Forumini Newsletter
Issue #10 (Sep. 2013)
Issue #9 (Sep. 2012)
Issue #8 (Dec. 2011)
Issue #7 (Sep. 2011)
Issue #6 (Apr. 2011)
Issue #5 (Christmas 2010)
Issue #4 (Dec. 2010)
Issue #3 (Jul. 2010)
Issue #2 (Apr. 2010)
Issue #1 (Feb. 2010)


Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Theme by: :: Cosmic Distortion ::
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum