"WWII Armour Classification Question" Topic

As WWII folks may recall, I posted a topic on tank damage as I am revamping my armour resolution rules (house rules for a commercial rule set). Long, long ago (around 1988-89), I did a pile of research on armour thicknesses as I was using an Angriff style ( link ) approach for armour combat resolution. Older and far more impatient than I was 20+ years ago, I have eventually evolved (or devolved, depending on your point of view, of course! ) to a system somewhat similar to Rapid Fire, or so I'm told, I've actually not seen RF rules myself, but I came on the mechanism from listening to various posts on armour combat resolution here and elsewhere.

Anyway, I have armour divided into classes based on armour thickness and what I believe to be historical perspective on survivability (from my own reading) and weapons into similar classes. You pick a weapon, choose a target, measure the range and look up on a table how many dice you roll.

As many folks who have published rules or, like me, have written their own home brew rules many times, I am looking at my classification system and suddenly I am having some doubts.

In terms of frontal protection, I have these three classifications (I actually have a total of 8 at the moment, up from 5 I originally set out with), listed in order from the most vulnerable to the least vulnerable. Please remember that these are fairly broad categories:

1: Around 50mm thickness equivalent, for example, Panzer IV E (60mm and with spaced armour, I know), Panzer IV F, M-10 TD (I assume the sloped front gives the relatively thinner 38mm – 1.5" – an increased armour equivalence – I may drop this TD a level).

2: Around 80mm thickness equivalent. Examples include: Sherman (the earlier 75mm equipped tanks – 2" hull front but some slope plus turret front usually listed as 3"); Panzer IV H (80mm to 85mm for hull front, depending on source, turret front is usually listed as 50mm, but some sources indicate the mantlet was thicker), Cromwell IV (the later Cromwells had thicker amour), T-34/76A (by the "A" I mean the 1939/40 model with the little bit shorter – L-11 I think – 76.2mm gun).

3. A bit more than 80, but less than 110mm. Example: T-34/76C, D (the 1941-43 models. My understanding is the base hull frontal armour is the same – 45mm significantly sloped, but turret front is 70mm as opposed to the first model's 45mm).

Here's where my doubting comes in – should I bother to separate the earlier T-34/76 from later models or lump them all together?

Comments on this last question preferred, though I am happy for any other comments or suggestions, thanks very much in advance.
--
Tim

I can understand your dilema. The older I get, the smoother I want my rules to play out, and I no longer want to tinker. So they either come close enough, and I play, or they don't and I pass.

I'm not a rivet counter by nature, but to answer your question, I'll ask this back. Were there LOADS of the earlier T34/76 running about, before the new and improved version hit the streets? If no, then group them the same. If yes, then keep them different.

Not every improvement to a tank line can be reflected in game stats. Carrying more ammo, or getting more gas mileage, or being more reliable … those really don't translate well to the table top. For a game, if that is all that happened between Model A and Model B, they are the same.

But if the weapon improves, or the armor, in a significant way, then that does impact the tabletop.

Of course, you risk having 20 classifications of armour (with perhaps every 10mm getting it's own armor band). On the other hand, if you water it down too far, you end up with such minor variations, you might as well go for:

Light Armor
Medium Armor
Heavy Armor

And then, for those who prefer to game with a company of Maus Tanks, or King Tiger IIIs, etc.,:

Obscene Armor

I assume that since you have 8 bands now, that things like armored cars, light tankettes, armored cars and the like have their own band even lower than "around 50mm?" That was just an example, not the lowest armor?

The nice thing about 6 bands is, you can key the chance of success off of a d6. 8 bands could go for a d8, and 10 a d10, and so forth. But I'm just babbling now.

You asked for an opinion. There you go!

Lump all the T-34s into the lower classification. German players expect to slaughter anything Soviet. :)

I'd say come up with a formula and implement it consistently. Let the T-34s and anything else fall where they may. I've always thought one of the arguments in favor of the "weapon + range vs armor" approach was consistency.

Are you dealing with things like round type, facing and armor quality? If not, isn't it all a bit arbitrary anyhow?

- Bob

The way in which the LWRS rules (free through a Yahoo group) do it is to have 4 bands and vary the description and scope of the bands with time.

Extreme armour is virtually proof to all standard anti-tank weapons so Early war it is about 60mm, later this class would have to be increased as weapons got better, up to about 80mm by mid war etc etc.

Similarly Light armour is about 15mm early war but nearer to 50mm later.

This still leaves you with some problems of classification but the number of classes at any one period stays the same.

Our own rules have 5 armour classes and 5 gun groups. Cross reference to get the necessary d20 roll that is needed. Ranges are short, medium and long; some gun groups just won't hit some armour classes at long range. We don't necessarily get to nit picky about things but just generally + or – 1 to the armour class or gun group to allow for period "advances". In the flank is a -2 to the armour roll and in the rear is a -4. Generally works quite well and any particular issues can be sorted out at the time; for example to make a Pak43 more lethal than a bog standard 88 (if there was such a thing as a bog standard 88!), I sometimes forget about long range and give it medium range factors out to long range. I find it doesn't affect things too much. Probably wouldn't be specific enough for tournament play but gives us the result we want. I reckon its better to look at the whole of the vehicle and what is shooting at it, rather than worry about exactly where it may hit and all the tables you need to sort that out.

cheers
Jon.

These are not commercial – they're for you and your mates?

It's the difference between weapon and armour is the thing to concentrate on.
Like Gildasfacit I dodge some of the issues of classification in (sg2ww2) by rating everything based on what is on table.
So in a late war game against soviets then the tiger's frontal armour might be rated "good" whilst in a mid war game it would be "excellent". (d8 and d12).
Whilst shermans armed with 75mm guns are up against a Tiger their guns would be d4 minus 1 for penetration. In another scenario where they're up against pz4 H they'd maybe be d6.

Categorising per game is just way less headache.

Tim's house rules for armour are a bit of a 'standard' bolt on amongst those that play 'a commercial set'

I would consider what the normal weapon basis is against the early T34 and what improved ammo came in later that made it. So, I would lump them all together in the higher value, but downgrade it by 1 in a later war scenario.

Two other things to consider when dividing tanks into various categories. Effective armor thickness and compostion. Two tanks may list say 80mm of armor however if one plate is essentially at zero and the second at 45 degrees then a big difference in effective armor thickness.

Also composition of the plate makes a difference. It is why you will often see the protection factor for various armor listed in rolled homeogenous armor (RHA) factor even if the plate in question isnt RHA. same for penetration value of various guns. They are usally listed as to so much penetration valued of so much RHA equivalent and so much an angle (for example 80mm at 500 meters for a plate at 30 dgrees).

I think if I was to "commercialise" my approach I'd divide the war into fronts and periods. Then rate the common opponents for the period. This also adds value for people unfamiliar with the period.
I don't think I would try and classify absolutely everything.

Of course, you risk having 20 classifications of armour (with perhaps every 10mm getting it's own armor band).

That's exactly what I do in my rules for my online games: armor gets 1 factor for each 10mm (1cm), but also modified for slope (30 degrees = 1.25, 40 = 1.5, 45 = 1.75, 50 = 2, 60 = 2.75). But I keep track of both the raw and the modified factors, since a tank does not always sit on perfectly level ground -- for instance, if it's going down a hill a T34 would lose some advantage of its well-sloped glacis plate.

Guns are rated on how many cms they can penetrate at various ranges (100m, 500m, 1000m, 1500m and 2000m -- very conveniently, according to actual data, guns often lost 1cm of penetration for each of those ranges; sometimes a little less or a little more, but pretty close; helpful if you lack data; but remember that much data rates the guns vs. armor at 30 degrees, so multiply it by 1.25, as for the armor on the target). However, penetration is not automatic; that involves a die roll, with chances of a kill improving as the gun's rating approaches and then exceeds the armor it strikes.

May sound complicated, but the complexity is in figuring the stats to start with, which I put on cards for each tank type. During the game I only need to consult the cards for the firing tank/gun and for the target and roll a die or two.

Actually Don you make an excellent point. The complications in more armor and gun classifications is in coming up with the chart and assessments, it really doesnt complicate play.

For example Rapid Fire uses a 6 by 6 matrix with armor evaluated A-F and guns 1-6. However armor classification F is really for soft skins so only 5 real armor range bands. The problem is things like 6 gun classifications has to cover things like 20mm and early war 37mm and 2 pdrs all the way up to say a 88 Pak or a 128. You find some compromises that make little sense. A 10 by 10 matrix isnt any harder to use then a 6 by 6. The challenge is in coming up with the matrix.

It would be up to the rules person how they wanted to handle classification of tanks. Once again Rapid Fire has a single letter to each tank, based primarily on front armor. Any rear shots (only front and rear in RF, no flank) adjusts the die roll. You can go with that or, on your vehicle card, list a front, side and rear value.

Also advocate using a 10 sided die :)

We did in Fire! Ogon! Freur! in 1984 a simple number classification of rating armor from 1-10 (thickness and slope). At the same time tank guns were rated capable of penetrating 1-10 as well. So if a hit is made and the armour rating number could be penetrated, then the gun hit the target adn either achevied a track destruction or a turrent destruction.

Very fast and simple resolution and fast play too.