Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
    
Land of 10,000 taxes
 | | 07/29/2005 5:23 PM |
| | recovered topic 6678 | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
|
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 07/29/2005 5:23 PM |
| | 5/4 defence. COme on they were death traps. Ohh well at least it is an uncommon IIRC. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
|
Ben Webster
Warrior
204 Posts
Brisbane, Australia
| | 07/30/2005 2:11 AM |
| The Sherman comes off favourably when compared to the T34/76 (in A&A CMG rules) But when the T34/76 was around it wasn't facing Panthers and Tigers. In 1941 it was the Panther (KV's being the Tiger of the era).
Ben. | |
Trade Ref's: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1347
Woo-hoo! Now I'm a Warrior. | |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 07/30/2005 8:14 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Ben Webster
The Sherman comes off favourably when compared to the T34/76 (in A&A CMG rules) But when the T34/76 was around it wasn't facing Panthers and Tigers. In 1941 it was the Panther (KV's being the Tiger of the era).
As it should, IMO. They were very comparable tanks, with only a slight edge to the T-34. This seems to be represented decently with the better side armor of the T-34 (sloped, as opposed to the Sherman's) and a slightly better gun at long range. The superior armor of the T-34 caps it nicely. I think they did OK.
As Ben says, it's important to remember that the T-34 surprised and perhaps shocked the Germans when they first encountered it. Compared to their Pzkfw Is, IIs and IIIs, it was a beast. But they recovered quickly, and by 1942 they had more than recovered their overall advantage, particularly in guns. When the Shermans made their appearance, the T-34 was outclassed by almost all the better German armor against which the Americans had to contend.
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2413 Posts
London
| | 07/30/2005 9:33 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vulturedoodle
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Webster
The Sherman comes off favourably when compared to the T34/76 (in A&A CMG rules)
As it should, IMO. They were very comparable tanks, with only a slight edge to the T-34.
So, with the Shermans game stats almost the equal of the T-34's. i.e. slightly worse armour and significantly better anti-infantry firepower. Why is it 75% of the points cost.[?] Looks to me as if 4*Shermans are much more cost-effective than 3*T-34's. (in the game)
| | | |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 07/30/2005 1:45 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
So, with the Shermans game stats almost the equal of the T-34's. i.e. slightly worse armour and significantly better anti-infantry firepower. Why is it 75% of the points cost.[?] Looks to me as if 4*Shermans are much more cost-effective than 3*T-34's. (in the game)
Interesting. I hadn't even compared the costs of the two units. Someone should playtest four Shermans against three T-34s, see how it balances. On the surface it seems slightly unbalanced in favor of the Shermans, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the superior armor of the T-34s evens things up.
At medium range a frontal shot from a T-34 rolls 11 dice. If five hit a Sherman is disrupted; six hits disrupts/damages it.
At medium range a frontal shot from a Sherman also rolls 11 dice, and five hits will disrupt a T-34. But now it takes seven hits to disrupt/damage the Russian tank.
So...high average hits (six) from the T-34 damages the Sherman; high average hits from the Sherman only disrupts the T-34. This also doesn't factor in the weaker side armor of the Sherman. At close range it is not so very improbable to get eight hits on 13 dice, which would destroy the Sherman outright. Ten hits on 13 dice, on the other hand....
Based on that admittedly hasty (and quite possibly wrong) analysis, I'm actually inclined to favor the T-34s. This is definitely interesting. Hey...somebody playtest this, wouldja?
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
Ben Webster
Warrior
204 Posts
Brisbane, Australia
| | 07/30/2005 6:23 PM |
| I will be interesting to see how things like this play out (4xSherman vs 3xT34). Also which Tanks will end up being the best value for buck.
Many WWII games are very favourable to fixed gun armoured vehicles (Stug, Jadgpanther). These vehicles are normally lower cost than there turreted friends and have decent guns with great frontal armour. And no real (in game that is) disadvantages. Whilst in real life they are at a disadvantage (otherwise everything would have a fixed gun rather than a turret).
Ben. | |
Trade Ref's: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1347
Woo-hoo! Now I'm a Warrior. | |
|
XAos
Underboss
2413 Posts
London
| | 08/01/2005 7:32 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vulturedoodle
This also doesn't factor in the weaker side armor of the Sherman. At close range it is not so very improbable to get eight hits on 13 dice, which would destroy the Sherman outright. Ten hits on 13 dice, on the other hand....
Odds of 8+ hits from 13-dice are 2380/8192 = 3 in 10
10+ hits are 378/8192 = 1 in 20
But from the turn sequence I don't see how you'll get a close range flank shot unless the target is already disrupted.
Assuming first round of fire will be at medium range;
T-34's V's Shermans
Disrupt 72% *3
damaged 50% *3
Shermans V's T-34's
disrupt 72% *4
damage 27% *4
So the median result is 2 shermans damaged & 2 shermans unhit
with 1 T-34 damaged and both the others disrupted.
Round:2 the 2 unhit shermans can move to close range and should easily kill or damage 2 of the disrupted T-34's (86% damage, 30% kill)
At long range the odds are T-34 V's sherman;
disrupt 62% *3
damage 37% *3
Sherman V's T-34
disrupt 50% *4
damage 9% *4
So the T-34's cause 2.97 damage markers to the shermans 2.36 but since the shermans can afford a 4-to-3 damage ratio the odds still favour the shermans.
I don't claim thats an exhaustive analysis, both players will clearly use terrain to try to prevent some of the opposing units having a LoS i.e. achieve "defeat in detail" (easier to do against 4 units than 3) and with both sides being speed:4, neither will be able to control the range at which the first shot occurs. | | | |
|
star48
Skirmisher
4 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 12:56 AM |
| Where can i keep something like that? [:X]
| |
| |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 8:39 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by star48
Where can i keep something like that? [:X]
Like what? I looked through the earlier posts, but don't see what you might be referring to.
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 9:15 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Ben Webster
Many WWII games are very favourable to fixed gun armoured vehicles (Stug, Jadgpanther). These vehicles are normally lower cost than there turreted friends and have decent guns with great frontal armour. And no real (in game that is) disadvantages. Whilst in real life they are at a disadvantage (otherwise everything would have a fixed gun rather than a turret).
Ben.
I think the biggest reason only the Germans built a lot of turretless vehicles was that they weren't technically "tanks," and thus didn't conform to Fuller's ideas of the modern (in the 20's) battlefield. Only the Germans resorted heavily to these vehicles when their inability to keep up with allied production forced them to look at the problem realistically rather than through the lens of Fuller's theories.
Discounting the PzI and PzIIs (plus some of the minor allies' tanks like the Pz38t), the Germans produced something over 20,000 tanks and 14000 assault guns/tank hunters (this also disregards the stop-gap designs like the Marders). Of these, the most-produced vehicle was the fixed-gun StuGIII, at something over 10,000 units.
By most accounts, they were very effective, especially in a defensive role, when they could wait for the enemy to come to them. They were obviously less suited to a highly mobile battlefield, but most of the time that wasn't the case. For the Germans, half the war was fought on the defensive, so it was a good solution.
Still, in a tactical game like this, one should expect a turreted vehicle to have some advantage over a non-turreted one. Not a decisive advantage, true, but some sort of additional flexibility. Have we seen the stat card for the Jagdpanther, yet? That might tell us something.
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
XAos
Underboss
2413 Posts
London
| | 08/19/2005 10:03 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vulturedoodle
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Webster
Many WWII games are very favourable to fixed gun armoured vehicles (Stug, Jadgpanther). These vehicles are normally lower cost than there turreted friends and have decent guns with great frontal armour. And no real (in game that is) disadvantages. Whilst in real life they are at a disadvantage (otherwise everything would have a fixed gun rather than a turret).
Ben.
I think the biggest reason only the Germans built a lot of turretless vehicles was that they weren't technically "tanks," and thus didn't conform to Fuller's ideas of the modern (in the 20's) battlefield. Only the Germans resorted heavily to these vehicles when their inability to keep up with allied production forced them to look at the problem realistically rather than through the lens of Fuller's theories.
The germans built assault guns for 2 reasons.
1) There is a fixed ratio between the size of the turret-ring and the maximum size of the gun carried in that turrent. Guderian lists the mathematical formulae for that in one of his books on the subject.
So the germans used assault guns to let them carry a more-powerfull antitank gun on an obsolete tank chassis. There are some alternative technical "gimmicks" you can use to improve on that limit. e.g. An open topped turret allows more room to load the ammo. Or you can seperate the round into a 2 parts (projectile & propellant) Each of these techniques have their own liabilities. The Fixed gun or open turret are obvious weaknesses. Seperate propellant charges slow the rate of fire.
2) The other reason was German buraucracy. Tank production & use came under one branch of the buraucracy. Assault guns under an entirley different branch. That particular Buraucratic rule was signed by Hitler in person. So it could not be "corrected" by anyone else. | | | |
|
Autarch
Skirmisher
16 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 10:27 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vulturedoodle
Still, in a tactical game like this, one should expect a turreted vehicle to have some advantage over a non-turreted one. Not a decisive advantage, true, but some sort of additional flexibility. Have we seen the stat card for the Jagdpanther, yet? That might tell us something.
Regards,
Steve F.
I haven't seen the stat card for the Jagdpanther, but on the sIG 33 in the Special Abilities section it says
Fixed Howitzer - This unit can only attack units in front of it.
I bet the Jagdpanther will have something similar. This really comes into play if the unit is disrupted and cannot move or change facing. | |
| |
|
Craw
Sneak
74 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 10:33 AM |
| | In game, the fixed gun armored vehicles suffer from low infantry attacks. There is also a "fixed howitzer" special that only allows shots against vehicles in front of the unit. See the Grant. I would expect that for the Jadgpanther also. This opens the fixed gun weapons up to more flank shots if they intend to engage targets on their own flanks. Tanks just turn the turret and it has no effect on their armor facing. | |
Featherfall??! Who needs featherfaaaalll. . | |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 11:21 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by XAos
The germans built assault guns for 2 reasons.
1) There is a fixed ratio between the size of the turret-ring and the maximum size of the gun carried in that turrent. Guderian lists the mathematical formulae for that in one of his books on the subject.
So the germans used assault guns to let them carry a more-powerfull antitank gun on an obsolete tank chassis. There are some alternative technical "gimmicks" you can use to improve on that limit. e.g. An open topped turret allows more room to load the ammo. Or you can seperate the round into a 2 parts (projectile & propellant) Each of these techniques have their own liabilities. The Fixed gun or open turret are obvious weaknesses. Seperate propellant charges slow the rate of fire.
This is equally true for Germany and the allies. The difference was that that Germans lacked the production capabilities of their enemies. Needing to solve the problem of tank shortage by some means, they had to ignore earlier theories on the dominance of the true "tank" and supplement their forces with turretless AFVs.
Contrary to the then-current wisdom, these worked very well. They weren't as desirable as tanks, they weren't prestigious or sexy, but they got the job done. In a defensive role, they were as good as or better than towed AT guns, and much easier to produce with existing resources than the more glamorous tanks.
quote:
2) The other reason was German buraucracy. Tank production & use came under one branch of the buraucracy. Assault guns under an entirley different branch. That particular Buraucratic rule was signed by Hitler in person. So it could not be "corrected" by anyone else.
This I didn't know. Thanks for the info. Good analysis.
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 08/19/2005 11:29 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Craw
In game, the fixed gun armored vehicles suffer from low infantry attacks.
Not sure what you're saying here. In what way do they suffer from low infantry attacks? The attack value against Soldier units for both the Sig-33 and M3-Lee are as high as anything else previewed. Can you clarify?
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
Knight of Argenis
Corim Danex
Warlord
6843 Posts
West Valley City, Utah
| | 08/22/2005 2:03 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vulturedoodle
quote:
Originally posted by star48
Where can i keep something like that? [:X]
Like what? I looked through the earlier posts, but don't see what you might be referring to.
Regards,
Steve F.
star48 is a spammer | |
"Look to God and live." Alma 37:47
Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
|
Craw
Sneak
74 Posts
| | 08/22/2005 12:24 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Vulturedoodle
quote:
Originally posted by Craw
In game, the fixed gun armored vehicles suffer from low infantry attacks.
Not sure what you're saying here. In what way do they suffer from low infantry attacks? The attack value against Soldier units for both the Sig-33 and M3-Lee are as high as anything else previewed. Can you clarify?
Regards,
Steve F.
I wasn't specific enough. When I wrote fixed gun armored vehicles, I meant to say fixed gun anti-tank weapons, a la jadgpanther. Low infantry attack numbers are present for the 6 pounder and the Hellcat (anti tank, but 1 is not a vehicle and the other is not fixed gun). The disadvantage of a fixed gun was the forward firing aspect of the Lee or the sig33. I expected the jadgpanther, a fixed gun anti-tank armored vehicle, to have a low infantry attack and the "fixed howitzer" special. As written, my original post was wrong. | |
Featherfall??! Who needs featherfaaaalll. . | |
|
Retired Tank
Vulturedoodle
Sergeant
791 Posts
| | 08/22/2005 1:57 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Craw
I wasn't specific enough. When I wrote fixed gun armored vehicles, I meant to say fixed gun anti-tank weapons, a la jadgpanther. Low infantry attack numbers are present for the 6 pounder and the Hellcat (anti tank, but 1 is not a vehicle and the other is not fixed gun). The disadvantage of a fixed gun was the forward firing aspect of the Lee or the sig33. I expected the jadgpanther, a fixed gun anti-tank armored vehicle, to have a low infantry attack and the "fixed howitzer" special. As written, my original post was wrong.
I suspect the low Soldier-attack-values of these figures isn't related to their non-turreted status. It's more a function of weapon's usage. "One failing of the 6-pdr was the lack of a High explosive round through most of its service life, it was not until 1944 that such a round was introduced although the Americans had one for thier version from the start."
(see http://www.geocities.com/area51/comet/6498/t2000ww2britishartillery.html)
Not really sure about the M-18. Do we have the stats yet? A low Soldier-attack value might represent the absence of a coaxial MG (many had only a turret mounted .50).
Regards,
Steve F. | |
Vaughan: You seem like a thinker. You seem to always be deep in thought. So what are you thinking right now?
Karl: I'm thinking I could use some more o' that potted meat, if you got any extry.
H/W List <|>Trades
| |
|
Craw
Sneak
74 Posts
| | 08/22/2005 5:57 PM |
| | Precisely, but even with high explosive rounds, the bigger tank guns are getting fairly low infantry attack values. How the Humber gets better LONG RANGE infantry attack values than the Panther and Tiger is beyond me. ROF must be a huge factor in infantry attack. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall the Shermans having a lot of machine guns for anti-personnel work, whereas the Wolverine and Hellcat had only a single .50 for anti-air. | |
Featherfall??! Who needs featherfaaaalll. . | |
|