Tank combat discussion/suggestions for improvement

[Strela]

ComradeP,

Thanks for your post. A couple of things are resonating for me here.

The first is that the PzKw III is under gunned. I'd have to defer to Ed on that but looking at the base numbers you mention it is all about the relative hard attack/defense values.

Looking at the hard attack value it's interesting to look at the following table;
http://www.panzerworld.com/armor-penetration-table



Currently there are 2 50mm guns that were mounted on the PzKw III. The first was the L/42 (on the F to J types) and the L/60 on the J1 to M variants. In game these are given a HA value of 10 vs 12.

If we use 500 metres as the base distance to compare the two guns using the PzGr 40 round, penetration increases from 55mm to 72mm - an improvement of ~31%. In game terms that would move a hard attack value of 10 to 13. This is not miles off the current 12.

If the PzGr 40/1 (tungsten?) round was available the overall value is ~38% or an imputed value of 14. The challenge here is that tungsten rounds were in short supply when compared to standard AP ammo.

Talking defence values; the J - M variants had 70mm armour on its forward facing surfaces (50mm base + 20mm applique). In game the defence value is either 10 or 11. I believe the 10 represents the 50mm so it could be argued that with the applique it should be closer to 14. This gels with the T-34 value of 18, which I believe comes from 45mm frontal armour sloped at 60 deg. So 45 mm at 60 degree = 45/cos60 = 90mm effective armor.

Finally this thread lays out Jentz's comments on the L/60 vs the T-34
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=133403

Paraphrasing;

There are several references in Jentz: "Panzertruppen" about the performance of the 5cm L/60 vs T34.

1. 31. july 1942 (p.241, vol. 1)
PzGr 38 was not effective against the hull front, though sometimes it managed to knock the dirvers hatch off. Lower hull side could be penetrated up to 500 meters, turret side and front and upper hull side up to 400 meters. PzGr 40 didn't work in the gun, so there is no data for that round. Later in the report, it is stated that the 5cm L/60 and 7,5cm L/43 guns have made the T-34 inferior to the German tanks whereas it previously was considered superior.

2. May 1942 (p. 231, vol.1)
PzGr penetrates up to 400 meter at hull and turret sides, at 300 meters from the front after several hits on the drivers hatch at 300 meters. PzGr 40 was defective and only fired at KV's

A "Panzerbeschusstafel" from March 1943 shows the range and areas which 5cm L/60 tank gunners should fire at vs the T-34 in order to be sure to achieve penetration:

- Turret front plate, 100 meters with PzGr 38 and 40
- Hull front, the narrow vertical part where upper and lower hull meets, 100 meters with PzGr 40
- Turret side, 600 meters with PzGr 38, 500 meters with PzGr 40
- Upper hull side, PzGr 38 500 meters, PzGr 40 400 meters
- Lower hull side, PzGr 38 1000 meters, PzGr 40 800 meters, but maximum range for the PzGr 40 was set to 600 meters
- Rear turret, PzGr 38 600 meters, PzGr 40 500 meters
- Rear hull, PzGr 38 and 40, 300 meters

So even though the front could be penetrated, the areas, the front turret plate and the narrow band on the hull front, were very small.

So it's a hard one to say that the PzKw III values are grossly understated and that it could go head to head with T-34's for any extended period of time.

The counter point here is that PzKw IV feels 'better' in game and maybe the PzKw II is reflecting some of the assertions above.


The second point that had me pondering is the rapidity of armour combat. I'm no expert on engagement times. My gut says you're right and engagements would be short and sharp. Any armour company losing 3 - 5 tanks (a platoon in size) would tend to break off contact if possible as the losses would quickly become prohibitive.

In play terms this essentially puts armour more as a 'one time' use weapon system. Be prepared to take excessive casualties when in play - so only use it at the critical point. To force casualties up it would be easy to increase the hard attack modifier while leaving defence values as is. This would make engagements sharper and more violent and would require a more careful introduction to the combat zone.

The only challenge I see with this approach is that players will ultimately end up with more casualties than historical due to them burning every unit out when engaged. That said there is an offset in the VP values for those additional lost vehicles.


Anyway, this is a good discussion that is as much about the 'feel' of the game as it is about the historical accuracy.

David