Campaign Series II?

[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