Shoot & Scoot

[RADO]

Exactly so....it is a simulation.

And a game.

A simulation fails if and when it becomes unrealistic. That is what this discussion is about...whether the effective range of a given tank is realistic.

Correct and I am discussing them. The ranges of the the units is fine. By in large LOS interms of terrain and visability conditions determined the engagement ranges of any given encounter.

The scenario designers job is to limit the encounter ranges. It is not the job of the weapons file.

Lets look at the 75mm L70 shall we?

APCBC-HE
Designation: Panzersprenggeschoß 39 (Pzgr. 39/42)
Type: Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap High Explosive
Projectile weight: 6,8 kg
Round weight: 14,3 kg
Round length: 893,2 mm
Muzzle velocity: 925 m/s
Penetration, Rolled homogenous steel armor plate at 90° and 30° angles from the horizontal
0 m: 167/133 mm
450 m: 149/121 mm
900 m: 133/110 mm
1350 m: 118/99 mm
1850 m: 104/89 mm
2300 m: 91/79 mm

APCR
Panzergeschoß 40 (Hk) (Pzgr. 40/42)
Type: Armor Piercing Composite Rigid, tungsten core
Projectile weight: 4,75 kg
Round weight: 11,55 kg
Round length: 875,2 mm
Muzzle velocity: 1120 m/s
Penetration, Rolled homogenous steel armor plate at 90° and 30° angles from the horizontal
0 m: 230/197 mm
450 m: 198/154 mm
900 m: 170/123 mm
1350 m: 145/99 mm
1850 m: 122/80 mm
2300 m: 103/65 mm

So yes it can blast a a T34/85 (90mm armor) at 11 hexes.

Are the "bombers" that sit on the airfield and project their bombs by some supernatural agency realistic?

No they are not.

I think my views on that fiasco are well known.

To which I agree.

Is the recent three fold increase in truck values realistic? I don't think so, but it has happened, on the quiet, it seems.

It seems to me that change in CS now has a momentum all its own. At least here, players can air ideas and concerns, and hopefully encourage the changemeisters to move in a direction that is broadly acceptable.

Yes and I have the right to advocate that some things not be changed.

The game is good and does not need to be changed radically.

Tweaking ok.

And of course make everything optional.

Thanx!

Hawk

Hawk,

But here, you are talking actual thickness of armor penetration, and not a ballistic protection value. The 47mm frontal armor of the T34 was sloped at sixty degrees, giving it an effective thickness, as it relates to ballistic protection of 169mm thickness. (see R.M. Ogorkiewicz - Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles).

You list two specialty ammunitions for the 75mm L/71 but the standard AP had significantly less penetration ability. The APCBC ammo, even according to your figures above will not penetrate the T34 hull armor at any range, and tungsten core ammo was in very short supply in the German army.

Actual armor thickness at the horizontal increases as the metal is angled but the ballistic protection value of the armor increases much, much more, which is called "effective thickness".

I agree that a number of changes mentioned do in fact create a whole new game, but that is the nature of attempting to create a historical simulation.

- Greg