"Tank deficiencies not covered by rules" Topic

Well, at least the rules that I have read, which is admittedly a small sample.

I will give one example. The Lee/Grant tank is almost universally described as very tall, a huge target. Its 75mm gun is described as being so poorly mounted that it is nearly impossible to go "hull down".
OK. Fine. What rules actually cover these deficiencies?

I will admit that in North African games, the Grant is my favorite tank. Since the Bad Guys always have a Tiger what difference does it make if you have a Grant's or a Sherman's armor? They are cheap-ish, have a decent gun(s) and are my favorite tank to assault infantry,
But its defects mentioned above are not dealt with in Flames of War.

How many rules cover tanks breaking down on the way to the battle?
How many rules cover tanks breaking down IN the battle? FoW has "Unreliable" as a special rule for … unreliable tanks but a smart player never allows this to come into play, unless he is desperate.

What other tank defects are not covered by MOST rules, and which rules take them into account? And when they ARE accounted for, is it too heavy handed and arbitrary?

Jagdtigers shouldnt be able to turn on the spot, they could strip their tracks if they did that.

Early Soviet tanks should have to have the commander pop out the turret to wave flags when he wants to communicate to other tanks

Early Panthers should be unreliable

Panzer 38(t)s should do extra damage to their own crew if hit (as should other riveted armour tanks)

The only rule I see consistently throughout WW2 rulesets is the old Sherman=Ronson chestnut

Quality of optics.

Early Soviet tanks should have to have the commander pop out the turret to wave flags when he wants to communicate to other tanks

Partially, but not fully covered by FoW "Hens and Chicks" rule. BTW, that rule could well cover MOST Early War tanks of all nations without radios.

Panzer 38(t)s should do extra damage to their own crew if hit (as should other riveted armour tanks),

Adjusting the armor value downward for riveted tanks would cover this. Is it done already? Quite a few EW FoW tanks have obscenely low Armor ratings.

Early Panthers should be unreliable

Easy to give them this trait yourself in a scenario.

I've never seen a Sherman = Ronson rule. Admittedly I only own 11 different sets of WWII rules and not MOST of them.

Many of these are pretty subtle effects that would not impact a game.

Reliability would have a huge impact – You should have to pay for 3 Tigers in order to get 1 since they were that much less reliable than Medium tanks.

No radios is a big factor too – seldom well represented.

Single man turrets with the commander doing triple duty is a big issue but usually covered somehow in the rules. 2 man turrets are also a handicap.

I don't think optics matters much at typical combat ranges – but that would be different in the desert or on the steppes.

Didn't FoW v.1 have the Ronson rule?
IABSM has Ronson as an optional rule for Shermans.

You can cover "superior optics" by giving the tank a "re-roll misses" rule. FoW gives everybody the same chance to hit, and the shot is determined by the DEFENDER's skill. It works. Usually.
But a "re-roll misses: can be adjusted. Marginally better optics than the norm? Roll a 6 on your re-roll.
Decidedly superior? Then a 5 or 6.

I am not trying to shoot down stuff not covered. I am just trying to suggest how existing rules can be used.
God forbid they be used in tournaments. The points would be off!

IABSM has a number of optional rules to cover various tank quirks, including such things as fast and slow turret traverse, overloaded commanders, etc. The card activation system also provides an easy way to account for reliability with a vehicle breakdown card (or petrol shortage).

Yup IABSM has it; from memory:
Tiger – 2 dice (actions) to acquire a new target
Sherman – ronson and bonus shot (1 vehicle)for quick traverse
Large calibre guns 122-152 – one shot per round instead of max of 3
1 man turrets – max of 2 shots
Breakdown & out of fuel cards
Individual cards for tanks without radios

You can customise your heart out – elephants and panthers at kursk might get 2 breakdown cards for example. Its a great mechanic.

IABSM covers several aspects as above.

BattleGroup Kursk/Overlord etc covers several aspects such as vehicle breakdown nicely.

Command Decision has a special rule for some vehicles with hull mounted guns that are unable to operate hull down and use said weapon. I'm pretty sure the Grant/Lee is among them.

For flag waving, CD simulates it by limiting the number of orders possible for the battalion.

Many of the others raised already can be covered by a scenario specific rule.

BKCII does not allow Lee/Grants to go hull down, and I believe they also have penalties for poor radio communication for those countries deserving.

What I don΄t like in BKCII is that too many tanks share the same stats, such as the PZ35 and PZ38.

I have NEVER seen rule covering one of the biggest deficiency of all 1939 tanks with exception of Polish: lack of Gundlach periscope.

link
link

Unbelievable, I know, but German tanks in September 1939 had worse optics than Polish tanks.
(In addition to the fact, that 7TP was first mass produced diesel engine tank, with radio and gun good enough to smash through any German armour, and no big white crosses.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7TP

As a reservist of armoured division I cannot even imagine commanding tank without Gundlach periscope (or one of his scion), really…

Bolt Action has the Ronson Shermans, fortunately my Canadian First Hussars drive Sherman V's and Vc Fireflies — those M4A4's pay a few more points to buy off the 'catches fire easily' feature.

Unbelievable, I know, but German tanks in September 1939 had worse optics than Polish tanks.

Reference?

Well you first problem is using FOW as your model. I believe "Battalions in Crisis" has a rule concerning Soviet lack of radios. Doesn't "Command Decision" address most of these issues?

Well you first problem is using FOW as your model.

Can't resist the cheap shot, eh?

Advanced Squad Leader covers all the points mentioned.

Optics-red to hit numbers that are worse than normal
'brew up'-low crew survival numbers andexplosion chances on vehicles
no radios-you have to have tanks unbuttoned and roll to see how many will move
breakdowns-red movement numbers where after moving 1/3rd you roll for immobilisation
ammo types, armor quality, better or worse leadership, even running out of fuel and ammo is covered.

Worth translating into a miniatures game.

I will give one example. The Lee/Grant tank is almost universally described as very tall, a huge target. Its 75mm gun is described as being so poorly mounted that it is nearly impossible to go "hull down".

It was 5" (104%) taller than the Panther. I suspect it could hull down but not still use a sponson mounted gun. I wonder if the rules are sufficiently nuanced … and if we care. Do we want games to depend on how a few reliability die rolls go?

In the NUTS system, especially in the Clash of Titans book for the Eastern Front, unique vehicle properties are described where needed. For example, the Lee/Grant has a restricted arc of fire with it's main gun, the KV-2 cannot traverse its turret on a slope, some vehicles have "low profile" targeting mods, some have a higher chance of bogging down, etc. It adds flavor, but it's not overly detailed. I think the most detailed system was in Battleground WW2 in which each tank had multiple hit location silhouettes and armor factors -- but it was unnecessary since an 88mm hitting a Sherman almost anyplace leads to BOOM!

In my homegrown rules a tank hull down exposes only 1 and 2 on a D6 but a Lee / Grant would expose 1, 2, 3, because the gun is so low on the vehicle, in the hull, rather than in the turret.

Some rules, not mine, use a move or shoot rule for those one man in the turret tanks.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I play Spearhead so I don't get overly concerned with such low level "tactical" details but I do use simple homegrown rules for vehicle breakdowns for such nototiously unreliable vehicles as the King Tiger and Jagdtiger.

And by simple I mean that if the vehicle moves it breaks down on a roll of 1 on a d6. And if it breaks down the crew remains onboard to fight on a roll of 6 on a d6, otherwise they bail out and the vehicle is out of the fight. Otherwise we've found those vehicles to be just too powerful. It's simple, quick and adds an interesting element of chance to the game.

LOL John but if you bring it outside that board its a legal cheap shot…

Crosswords handled all of these mentioned and more, including slow reloads, penalties for under crewed turrets and bore sighting. Of course they also have opportunity fire, so don't compare well with FOW

Cheap shot at FOW?… Nah, there's nothing cheap about FoW.

Something I have never seen depicted in any ruleset is the shatter-gap phenomena for ammunition for 2 pdr and US 76mm guns.

Broadswords handled all of these mentioned and more, including slow reloads, penalties for under crewed turrets and bore sighting. Of course they also have opportunity fire, so don't compare well with FOW

Breakdowns are probably easier to just work into the scenario. How many times should you see a full, paper-strength Tiger company on the table?

Some games do handle all the other nonsense, some ignore it. Depends on scale too.

I'd say the load speed is one of the things that is most often left out, even in skirmish games where it ought to be a factor.

They're hot stuffy and don't have a bathroom on board?

When Germany lost access to tungsten or nickle (or maybe something else) their armor became very brittle and would crack when hit. Enough cracks and it would just fall apart. This makes Tiger IIs much less scary.

Almost no one has rules for vehicles that could run on wheels or tracks, like the BT. I can't imagine why you'd want to do it (the wheels were mostly for road marches), but I can't remember ever seeing a rule for it.

They're hot stuffy and don't have a bathroom on board?

Flames of War covers this in the EW rules for the T-35.
The "Land Battleship" rules take into account the swimming pool and bowling alley aboard, giving them plusses to hit for having a fitter crew. Which is odd, since FoW only takes into account the target's Skill rating.
The bathrooms have valet service.
Too bad they all broke down in 1941,,,

Playing the French one man turrets in Battleground WWII is an extraordinarily frustrating experience. Assuming the tank commander in the turret starts out with a loaded gun, he must handcrack the turret to get the gun in rough position (one action), then aim and fire the gun (another action – aiming takes a separate action and gives you a positive to hit modifier), and then reload (1 action) before he can take another shot. All this while accumulating negative hit modifiers for various things like firing buttoned up, firing without a tank commander (he doesn't count for giving crew orders and keeping an eye out if he is the one doing all the actions), and possibly having a slow turret transverse.

The Pz II has a two man turret so it can get off more shots (not to mention having a rapid fire 20 mm). Don't recall off the top of my head if the Pz III had a two man or a three man turret.

So, yes, BG WWII factors in a lot of tank deficiencies, but they did forget the "no bathroom" negative modifier.

I think your point has largely been proven. Any tank can be "statted" out by tweaking the rules slightly. A breakdown role for mechanically unreliable tanks. Not being able to go hull down for the Lee/Grant. I'd argue that most tank destroyers and assault guns can't really go hull down. If they did they would not be able to shoot! I would also argue that they could go hull down in a prepared position as you could dig a gun port for the barrel.

Don't underestimate the importance of superior optics. Inferior optics was a major complaint of Allied tankers in NWE

Re flammability of Sherman tanks during the Normandy campaign, see – Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th July 1944: Report No. 12

link

… It was not pretty.

B

Hull Down means that the tank is situated so that just the turret is exposed to enemy sight. So any tank that has a turret should be able to do that if the terrain is suitable. Are you trying to claim Hull Down and fire the hull-mounted weapon?

I have heard that in Russian service the commander was not necessarily the guy who stuck his head out of the tank. Is there any truth to that tale?

There is a Russian movie called "The White Tiger" which seems to imply this, but the movie wasn't that good overall so they could have just been fudging things for the purpose of the story.

Don't underestimate the importance of superior optics. Inferior optics was a major complaint of Allied tankers in NWE

'Other mans grass is always greener' Bayerlein's comments on the problems with the Panther in Normandy are a case in point.
There was no descernable difference in gun optics at the ranges in NWE. If you were in direct sight you would be hit.

Re flammability of Sherman tanks during the Normandy campaign, see – Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th July 1944: Report No. 12

The same people did a survey of German hulks. The Tiger came out at 80%. The Pz IV also maxed at 80%. For some strange reason the fire-prone Panther came out at 60%.
Not really that much in it. A later 1945 survey went into much more detail as to what constituted 'burnt out' and (memory here) roughly 30% of fires in tanks were small enough to be repairable.

I thought this was a good article on the strengths and weaknesses of the Panther:
link

Actually, with respect to the 'hull down' discussion, there is the fact that different tanks have different maximum elevation and depression for their main guns.

For example during the fighting for the Golan Heights in 1973 the Israeli Centurion tanks were able to fire at the attacking Syrian T-54s without being subjected to return fire as the Centurions could depress their guns further than the T-54s could elevate theirs.

This also impacts the ability of the tanks to take hull or turret down positions. With their open topped turrets US WWII TDs had a significant advantage in this area.

Another aspect not covered is the 'driveability' of different tanks – as I recall T-34s were particularly hard on their drivers. Not a problem for most actions, but something that could in the real world be of consideration in a meeting engagement.

Daimler scout cars had 4 wheel drive and steering. They also had a high center of gravity. Per the AFV profile they were known for turning 'turtle' if the driver got a bit careless in a tense situation. But then Diamlers (and some other scout or armored cars) had two steering positions and could be driven in reverse from the second.

Then there is the fact that WWII British tanks could contra-rotate their tracks leading to the potential for tighter turns than, for example, the Sherman tank. Of course this increases the chance of 'throwing' a track.

Back to the 'hull down' question, Tractics and some other rules had modifiers for varying levels of concealment – suspension down (works for the Grant), hull down, and turret down.

Then there is the fact that for tanks or guns in hull down positions or dug in that muzzle brakes can kick up enough dust to obscure the target and prevent observation of the effect of the shot. This led to tank or gun commanders taking a position on the ground to the side where their line of sight would not be blocked.

On a final note, John Salt's War Office compendiums noted that in a test that the square turret of the Cromwell was easier to spot than the rounded turret of the Sherman when the tanks were in hull down positions. A possible spotting modifier if using a D20 rather than a D6.

Most of the above could be written into a computer game and is too granular for any tabletop 'simulation.'

The lack of hulldown protection is a good idea. We had a rule for that but I hadn't written it down in the Panzer War rules. What is does now is make the possible hulldown protection factor much smaller for a lower hull or sponson gun.

There was no descernable difference in gun optics at the ranges in NWE. If you were in direct sight you would be hit.

Statement is uniformed.
link
See PDF page 58,f.

Statement is uniformed.
link
See PDF page 58,f.

Statement is informed in relation to UK equipment. I suggest anyone doubting accuracy of UK gunsight consult the exploits of one one Joe eakins who, as a rookie gunner, despatched 3 tigers with 5 shots over 800 yds on his first shoot in action.
Further examples of hits at ranges of 1-2000 yds + may be found (for example) in APPENDIX 'D' to 21 Army Group RAC Liaison letter No 2. A sgt Dring engaged a Tiger at 1400 yds with 6 shots and observed 4 hits and knocked it out.
The Dring Tiger was extensively photographed after its demise

"There was no descernable difference in gun optics at the ranges in NWE. If you were in direct sight you would be hit."

….. The problem was not at 600 or 800 yards. It was at longer ranges and under difficult visibility conditions (haze, etc) that the difference became apparent, if the comments of US ETO tankers are to be accepted as competent testimony. I'm trying to find my file on US tanker interviews taken toward the end of the war. US optics in general were inferior to those of both German and Japanese.

B

The Easy Eight rules mentioned al sorts of peculiarities that various tank designs had but I don't remember if they all had rules associated with them. For example, apparently the loader' seat in the T-34 didn't rotate when the turret rotated and got in the way. And the ammo supply was limited to 9 rounds (IIRC) with the rest being stored under the floor plates which had to be lifted up to access it and then replaced again before action could resume.

mkenny wrote – "The same people did a survey of German hulks. The Tiger came out at 80%. The Pz IV also maxed at 80%. For some strange reason the fire-prone Panther came out at 60%."

….. Sorry, but I have to ask: when did this become a competition between the Sherman and German tanks? BTW, I'd like to read that report on German tank fire vulnerability by "the same people". Can you provide a reference?

B

My impression is that at typical battle ranges of <500m optics is not an issue. Even the weakest were adequate and any errors from optics were dwarfed by other factors.

But at longer ranges [which sometimes did happen even in the ETO] sure it could matter. For 17pdr armed Shermans it might be worth putting in a modifier – but for any other guns they like as not will not penetrate at 1200-1500m.

On the burning tanks 'Tommy Cooker' Shermans I read somewhere that it was more to do with the much greater power of the German guns. 75mm L48 and L70 were just ripping the Shermans apart and thereby causing fires – they did the same to other allied tanks too. No source for this but I did read it somewhere from a report.

That said – I have a rule for easily burnable AFVs in my homegrown system and I like it – since it adds flavour.

I don't have a duff optics rule however.

I thought this was a good article on the strengths and weaknesses of the Panther:

Why thank you. I do my best. :o)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Sorry, but I have to ask: when did this become a competition between the Sherman and German tanks?

It isn't. What is being claimed is that a Sherman 'burned' more easily than other tanks. I mentioned a survey that found the same burn % for Tigers & the Pz IV. If the Sherman was a 'bad' then any other tank that has the same burn rate is equally 'bad'. Or this % is the norm.

, I'd like to read that report on German tank fire vulnerability by "the same people". Can you provide a reference?

The 'same people' means it is the same OR people who did all the tank casualty surveys in Normandy. Endless repition of the Sherman casualty data goes unremarked whilst mentioning the other surveys that show the high German tank burn rates raises hackles.
Many of the OR Reports can be found in Copps 'Montgomery's Scientists.

link
The data from Table VIII of the report on AP penetrated German tank casualties June 6-Aug 31 1944 shows that of 32 German tanks 22 (69%) burned. The Sherman figures showed 33 of 40 (82%) burned. 69% v 83%, not quite what most people expect.

The problem was not at 600 or 800 yards. It was at longer ranges and under difficult visibility conditions (haze, etc) that the difference became apparent, if the comments of US ETO tankers are to be accepted as competent testimony. I'm trying to find my file on US tanker interviews taken toward the end of the war. US optics in general were inferior to those of both German and Japanese.

Its the Allied v German Equipment book. Much quoted in order to 'prove' German sights were superior. I have had it quoted to me many times and I have to wonder why no one notice the accounts where the US tankers complain about being taken under fire at long range by German guns. They say they fired back and got hits that did not penetrate. They say this proves German sights were superior because return fire knocked out some tanks. That is drawing the wrong conclusion. It proves US sights could get hits just as easily at long range. Its the penetration ability that is at fault.

I note this has slipped into the usual 'German is best' canard and there is no need for it. My initial claim is simple. At most of the ranges in Normandy (I was very specific) long range sights bestowed no discernable advantage. I go further and say the lack of a periscope for the Panther gunner resulted in substantialy slower reaction times for the first round.

For example during the fighting for the Golan Heights in 1973 the Israeli Centurion tanks were able to fire at the attacking Syrian T-54s without being subjected to return fire as the Centurions could depress their guns further than the T-54s could elevate theirs.

Really? I've never heard this before. It's a rather remarkable statement.

There is no conventional tank that can depress it's gun more than most tanks can elevate. When you depress, the front of the gun goes down. So the back of the gun goes up. But you have that turret roof thing in the way! When you elevate the gun the front goes up, the back goes down. You have the whole hull available to you for elevation. You can design a tank to elevate it's gun to 90 degrees if you want to. But you don't, because it's just not useful.

From my recollection (full disclosure, going from memory here) the maximum gun depression of a Centurion was -8 degrees. And the 105mm L7 armed Centurions had a bit less than that (as the gun was bigger and recoiled farther, but the turret was not higher nor the trunions any lower in the turret).

Again from memory, the T-54 could elevate it's gun up to about +15 degrees. There wasn't really much structural limitation on this … but that's about as far as the Russians thought it useful to elevate the gun.

So the notion that Israelis could depress their guns for a shot when the Syrians couldn't elevate far enough just doesn't seem reasonable. OK yeah, if in some case an Israeli Centurion was on a high hill, on the down-slope, when a T-54 was on flat ground (not on an up-slope), it is possible that that one Cent could get a shot when that one T-54 couldn't shoot back. But that's got nothing to do with gun depression nor hull-down positions. Just with terrain.

Rather, what has often been described is that Centurions, because of their gun depression, could take hull-down positions on a reverse slope, when T-54s, with a gun depression of only about -3 degrees, could not. It was not that the T-54s could not return fire, but that they had to expose their hulls to do it. That conveyed an enormous advantage in gunnery duals.

This also impacts the ability of the tanks to take hull or turret down positions. With their open topped turrets US WWII TDs had a significant advantage in this area.

What advantage? How do open-topped turrets relate to the ability to take a hull-down or turret-down position?

US TDs did not have a notably greater depression.

The advantage conveyed by the open top was situational awareness. 3 sets of eyes meant a better idea of the terrain, and a greater likelyhood of seeing the enemy first. First to see leads to first to shoot, another significant advantage in gunnery duals.

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)