Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: calculating armour and gun values  (Read 513 times)

Peterloo

  • Piglet
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
calculating armour and gun values
« on: December 07, 2016, 03:01:34 PM »
I'm having trouble trying to connect gun factors to armour factors.
we were looking at the panther which seems strangely - over gunned and armoured
the gun at 500m penetrated 140 mill of armour - but this only equates to a Churchill IIV which is an armour 9 - not 11. which is the gun factor.

panthers were only really vulnerable on the side. yet armour 9 is pretty invulnerable to a Sherman gun 7. even on the side the panther gets 4-5 saves the Sherman 4-5 hits - verse 40mm - that's all it had.

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: calculating armour and gun values
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2016, 05:42:24 PM »
Fred did all the work on this so I will let him know. PBI is based on ranges of up to 400m. Not a range which which tanks would prefer to operate!  Thus some guns are better than gamers think too.


martin

Peterloo

  • Piglet
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: calculating armour and gun values
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2017, 10:47:42 AM »
even more disturbed by light armour - like halftracks
10mm of armour = Armour factor 4 (they could only just stop rifle bullets in reality) yet verse a Sherman 75mm APHE round t if the Sherman rolls down, the round bounces off, on even dice the best is a KO result not a destroyed.

If 10mm = AF4 then a Sherman with 70mm on the front should = 28.

I know armour is not so important but realistic results should be expected, a Sherman should destroy a halftrack on even rolling not ko it.

I find it really hard to defend these rules to people who I am trying to introduce the rules to.

And I really like the rules, but things like this just make it really hard. -

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: calculating armour and gun values
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2017, 08:30:58 PM »
What DO you like about the rules Peter ?  :D

To be honest for me its easy to abstract the results. Maybe the Sherman only managed a glancing hit? We tend to forget that although figures and vehicles are static on the tabletop, only moving a certain number of squares before stopping, in reality, they would have been in pretty much constant motion.

Also don't forget that on the tabletop, everything is perfectly flat. In reality even the slightest dip in the ground, or raised hummock, will effect visibility. Factor in smoke, confusion, nervousness on behalf of the combatants, dodgy equipment etc etc. There are too many variables to list that will have an impact on a man's ability to aim straight or a tankers ability to sight his target.

If you whittle a gaming experience down to tank A will always destroy vehicle B, I'm afraid I'd lose interest pretty quickly.


Peterloo

  • Piglet
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: calculating armour and gun values
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2017, 11:10:26 AM »
Oh I like the rules - generally , It's just strange anomalies within them and loopholes people have found that I am trying to point out.

the thing about armour, is if something is supposed to be able to kill something then on even dice it should do it. Then if the dice aren't even you haver the chance of a survive.

A panther gun 11 on even dice will kill a Sherman (2/3rds effect =7 /4) and it should do , panthers eat Shermans for breakfast
so why won't a Sherman on even dice kill a halftrack? (4/2) ?

My point is light armour is over armoured which encourages players to use it far more aggressively than in real life. The doctrine of assault from armoured vehicles is Modern not ww2, in ww2 they dismounted well short of the enemy and attacked, they didn't drive into the enemy and fight from the vehicle or short assault from the vehicle, the germans used them as shields , getting out and moving up behind the vehicle, the Americans used them as fire support behind their own troops who formed in front of the vehicle.
I don,t know what the brit doctrine was officially, but it was basically drop off and bugger off.

It wasn't really a problem until the Sherman gun was downgraded,
which brings an interesting point - the early Shermans had 35mm less frontal armour than the Shermans that went in at D-Day so there should be an Early and a Later Sherman in the lists, In the dessert they are more like armour 6 (under the present system , or possibly 7 in the desert and 8 in Europe. )





Smiley Miley 66

  • Supporter 2017
  • Piglet
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: calculating armour and gun values
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2017, 08:14:50 AM »
I know what you mean. The easiest thing to do is to work out some of these things and play with them. My famous British Churchills, I found that there was some details missing for the late war up grades. So I sat down and worked them out and applied the points accordingly. As long as you can show these on a acceptable piece of paper nobody can argue with them. Fred's working out are reasonable but not comprehensive. Then you can never account for every tank and sub version made in WW2.
Plus PBI like a lot of games of that era are compromised at best, otherwise it would take an hour to go through each move if you included every piece of information that was actually needed to proceed with the game... we would become dare I say this "Roleplayers" rather than "gamers" having to use the likes of D10,D12 and D20 to get the results needed with all the factors included.

Leslie BT

  • Supporter 2017
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: calculating armour and gun values
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2017, 09:28:12 AM »
Agreed Miles.

Fred has had a stab at the factors but there are many variations.

Also with the PP rule sets using D6 that also presents difficulties.

All PP rules are constructed using D6 so we have to work with these handicaps.