Campaign Series II?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Remember scale?

Would that beer be in scale?

HSL

[dgk196]

Hello...

I'd like to see the attack factors for 2 lbr (40mm). and tanks armed with them, have their
'Attack Strength vs. Soft (unarmored) Target' set to a numerical factor of '0' (zero), or an (*).
As this weapon did not have an HE round there is no real reason to have such a factor for
these types of units.

I would also like to see the 'range' for 'anti-tank rifle' units have their 'Attack Strength vs. Hard (armored) Target' set to a range of '0' (zero) and a very reduced numerical factor, say just 1 or 2 points.
I think it should be have 'assault' factors. To be used either in an assault, or as a counter assault situation.

The reason? Well, as I can't find the darn book, I'll have to generalize the reasons for this.
As I remember, the information in this book, stated that rounds of this size had a tendency to deflect
at even very small 'striking angles', that is almost anything other than 'flat'. It seems to be a function
of the geometry of a 'small shell', there's no escaping the math I guess. Also, there was the problem with such 'small shells' breaking up, even under ideal circumstances.

Its one of 'the reasons' you find armored cars, armored personnel carriers and such, which only have 'thin'
armor, having it sloped. Since these vehicles would attack 'infantry' units (soft targets) or outposts, they where likely to run into units that had anti-tank riles (pre '43). And so the 'sloping' of thin (10 to 25mm) would have a significant effect on the effectiveness of such weapons against them.

This would make sense in a way. Sloping such thin armor plates might give you a 30 to 50 % increase, which still doesn't add up to much thickness. Against a 'larger' (37, 40, 45, 50... etc.) anti-tank gun this wouldn't make much difference. But angling them to have the effects of deflection or breaking up of anti-tank rifle rounds would make sense. It this case its not so much the thickness as it is the effects of the angle of the armor plates.

I guess these performance aspects caused their limited use, some countries didn't have them at all and others used them if they had to. The exception of course being Russia. Their use at times sheds some light on this subject. When able, the anti-tank rifle units would fire in a volley against a single target. In hopes of getting at least one round to potentially be effective!

Just a thought! If anyone has references, pro or con, on this subject, please post the links here. Your help would be very much appreciated.

Dennis

[zap]

I don't have but general knowledge but doesn't this reflect rounds hitting the tracks on armored vehicles. I thought that was the main target.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Hello...

I'd like to see the attack factors for 2 lbr (40mm). and tanks armed with them, have their
'Attack Strength vs. Soft (unarmored) Target' set to a numerical factor of '0' (zero), or an (*).
As this weapon did not have an HE round there is no real reason to have such a factor for
these types of units.

I would also like to see the 'range' for 'anti-tank rifle' units have their 'Attack Strength vs. Hard (armored) Target' set to a range of '0' (zero) and a very reduced numerical factor, say just 1 or 2 points.
I think it should be have 'assault' factors. To be used either in an assault, or as a counter assault situation.

The reason? Well, as I can't find the darn book, I'll have to generalize the reasons for this.
As I remember, the information in this book, stated that rounds of this size had a tendency to deflect
at even very small 'striking angles', that is almost anything other than 'flat'. It seems to be a function
of the geometry of a 'small shell', there's no escaping the math I guess. Also, there was the problem with such 'small shells' breaking up, even under ideal circumstances.

Its one of 'the reasons' you find armored cars, armored personnel carriers and such, which only have 'thin'
armor, having it sloped. Since these vehicles would attack 'infantry' units (soft targets) or outposts, they where likely to run into units that had anti-tank riles (pre '43). And so the 'sloping' of thin (10 to 25mm) would have a significant effect on the effectiveness of such weapons against them.

This would make sense in a way. Sloping such thin armor plates might give you a 30 to 50 % increase, which still doesn't add up to much thickness. Against a 'larger' (37, 40, 45, 50... etc.) anti-tank gun this wouldn't make much difference. But angling them to have the effects of deflection or breaking up of anti-tank rifle rounds would make sense. It this case its not so much the thickness as it is the effects of the angle of the armor plates.

I guess these performance aspects caused their limited use, some countries didn't have them at all and others used them if they had to. The exception of course being Russia. Their use at times sheds some light on this subject. When able, the anti-tank rifle units would fire in a volley against a single target. In hopes of getting at least one round to potentially be effective!

Just a thought! If anyone has references, pro or con, on this subject, please post the links here. Your help would be very much appreciated.

Dennis

Just for giggles, wouldn't a hit to an engine take out the vehicle?

Would you also like to have engineers hard attack range reduced to zero?
And, BTW the Russians continued to create ATR platoons because they did not have the capability to change their military industry on the fly.
The US used the M2 50 cal as an anti armor weapon against lightly armored vehicles.

Why mess with something that has worked?

HSL

[Jason Petho]

And so the 'sloping' of thin (10 to 25mm) would have a significant effect on the effectiveness of such weapons against them.

Assuming you're engaging combat on a pool table-esque surface.

It doesn't a lot of effort for an infantry unit to negate any armour slope advantage within the natural topography of a 250m hex.

Jason Petho

Here is some interesting reading:

The following information about the use of the Russian antitank rifle was originally published in the Red Star, official Soviet Army publication:

"In the preparation of antitank fire, the rifleman should select five or six key reference points at different ranges, measure the distance to them, and study the intervening terrain. When actually firing, he should fire at stationary tanks whenever possible and not take leads at ranges over 400 yards. Aim should always be taken at the vulnerable parts, taking advantage of any hesitation or exposure of the sides of the enemy tanks.

"Antitank defense must be drawn up so as to protect the antitank rifle units fully, by means of all available obstacles, mines, and fire power."

[dgk196]

Hello....

Good points guys... though I'm not sure if some are questions or comments.

So, yes, I think a 'hit' (whatever that may constitute) on an engine, could knock-out a tank.

Having 'Engineers' with a zero assault range... sounds like a good suggestion... I wonder how hard it would be to make that into an optional selection?

As to the Russians not being able to change their military industry on the fly... well that's something they had to contend with. But just because they 'stuck' with something doesn't mean it was a good idea... does it?

Yes, as far as I know there where 'ap' rounds for many small arms... 50 cal... 30 cal... and so on.

As to why mess with something that works... well I guess that depends on your point of view about what defines 'work' doesn't it. Everyone should be able to play the game in what ever form they like... original, modded and so on. For me, its a great game... with a lot of things that could be made to work much better, eh?

Is there a link for the 'Red Star'? I find it interesting to look at such material from 'Soviet' sources.


Dennis

[Herr Straße Laufer]

A) So, yes, I think a 'hit' (whatever that may constitute) on an engine, could knock-out a tank.

B) Having 'Engineers' with a zero assault range... sounds like a good suggestion... I wonder how hard it would be to make that into an optional selection?

C) As to the Russians not being able to change their military industry on the fly... well that's something they had to contend with. But just because they 'stuck' with something doesn't mean it was a good idea... does it?

D) Yes, as far as I know there where 'ap' rounds for many small arms... 50 cal... 30 cal... and so on.

E) As to why mess with something that works... well I guess that depends on your point of view about what defines 'work' doesn't it. Everyone should be able to play the game in what ever form they like... original, modded and so on. For me, its a great game... with a lot of things that could be made to work much better, eh?


Dennis

A) There are stories about Tigers being knocked out by mortars when their radiators were hit. And, as Jason pointed out, your computer monitor is flat the field of battle is not. So your sloped armor idea did not pass the test. And, there are always opportunities for "miracle" hits.

B) I would like to see the "all powerful" German engineers be clipped and other country engineers be upped when firing on hard targets. I was being facetious in that comment.

C) You missed the point or did not understand. The Soviets could not make quick changes and thousand of their soldiers were given inadequate weapons and obsolete structures. Relative to the game there should be no changes to what ATR squads should, and could, do.

D) The 50 cal round is still the most effective vs armor, for being a machine gun round.

E) I do not believe that it is wise to be able to play a game any way you choose (especially when playing in a club and reporting games on a ladder). The game should be played the way it was intended. Remember what an animal would look like if designed by committee?

How you play the game is surely up to you. Changing how the game is played is up to them (the team). Watering the product down through numerous "options" is never an answer. Ask Lincoln what he thought about being right all the time or pleasing all the people all the time?
As for me I like updates that improve the look and play of the game. Changes that do not make sense will be resisted at all costs.
As I have already stated; The game has lasted for many years, even unsupported. Why take the risk of making fundamental changes that could take away what has made it last for so long?

You can make a Frankenstein monster by sowing so many different parts together. Why not just give the original guys a haircut and lessons in etiquette?

HSL

[dgk196]

Hello...

I think, maybe, there is some misunderstanding about my ATR comments. I'm not proposing that a 'flat-earth' situation be imposed or adopted. In fact, my original request / observation was that the variances that, apparently, effect the ATR are not taken into effect. From what I feel is a decision that was made in the original game. I'm not putting it down, decisions had to be made and capabilities given so an end product could be made. In every project, someone has to make a decision given the data available at the time, eh?

Now though, years later, there is no reason not to address this, and various other anomalies, which are found in the game. I'm sure it was not done on purpose, with some sort of ill intent or because someone had an axe to grind. I don't get that feeling from the game and I don't think any else does either. Remember, all adjustments or variances can simply be made 'optional', thus potentially preserving the 'original game'. No harm, no foul!

Their is a simulation, very popular, called 'IL2 1946'. For a very long time, the access to making additions or changes was completely resisted by the 'powers that be'. But over time, as more situations where brought to light... and mods being proposed... this changed. There where predictions that 'fundamental changes' would spell the end of the game. The basic reason was it would effect online play. Well eventually the 'powers that be' realized that because all these mods and such where options, the online play would not be effected. If you don't install the mods you don't play with the mods. It was really that simple.

Now today, since they, opened the game to outside mods there are more versions and mods then there ever could have been and anyone can play the game in whatever variant they want to. The game is more popular now then it ever had been. I have some 8 different versions of the game loaded onto my system. And guess what, it hasn't effected 'online play' one bit.

I suggest that more open mods and versions can eventually become a good thing... as such things work their way 'back' into the originals, if they are perceived and accepted as being correct and good mods. The game becomes better over time. There are all sorts of 'factions' related to this game and the beliefs of those groups. All are accommodated as the mods are not written in such a way that the must be incorporated into anyone's game. And scenarios' (missions) are written specifically for certain mods, eliminating any confusion for the gamers.

One person is actually rewriting the way the program runs so that it uses a more modern engine. It is being written in such a way that will be able to incorporate and adapt any previous versions and mods... what more could anyone ask for. And its free!!!! There is potentially much to be gained by allowing open modding. Anyone who goes to far usually finds their mods being ignored, and so the game is 'self-righting' in that regards. So far it seems to be working. The only dissenters, where the original 'monks' (as we called them) who defend their complete control over all such mods and such. They too are largely being ignored and heard from less as the 'community' advances the game.

I hadn't intended a 'stump speech', or on intended to challenge policies of any one group or individual. But, I thought that relating what has taken place with other games that allowed modding might be of some help in the discussion.

Dennis

[Jason Petho]

The game is already moddable.

If one is so inclined, they can pretty well modify anything they want, with the exception of the primary exe's.

If you want to change your data, there is nothing stopping you from doing so.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I hadn't intended a 'stump speech', or on intended to challenge policies of any one group or individual. But, I thought that relating what has taken place with other games that allowed modding might be of some help in the discussion.

Dennis

Noted. Do what you want with your game. Just keep your hands off mine.
I really could care less what happens in other games.

HSL