"Tank Tactics" Topic

I was horrified how poor war games were in general covering tank tactics. In general the basic detail is far less than say infantry. It was why we wrote our own rules to get at least some of the basics better. It is interesting that even we may have missed some issues.

I have just finished TANK ACTION by David Render with Stuart Tootal. This covers the authors time 1944 to 1945 as a tank Troops Commander in the UK RAC.

Generally the book is worth a read. However there were some very interesting items in the book.

Most of the commanders preferred the short 75mm Sherman.

The grounds were that they did not see that many of the Panthers and Tigers and in the normal battle the short 75mm was much handier as it could always be brought to bare.

The Firefly's although at least a gum match to the Tigers and Panthers, was a bit of a problem in that the long barrel made it hard to maneuver in tight ground. In addition if moving at speed the Firefly gun had to be secured rearwards to prevent damage to the gun mounting due to the weight of the gun.

The second supprie in the book was the preferred ammo for hitting a Panther or Tiger was HE for the Short 75mm. By the end of the war this author was seeing generally small numbers of the Tigers and Panthers and they (UK) normally had overwhelming numbers. Their technique was to use the high rate of fire of the Sherman to hit the enemy with HE. The high rate of fire tended to obscure and damage the optics of even a Panther or Tiger and hence they were forced to withdraw. The Firefly would then stalk the tanks and take them out.

The armor of the Panther and Tiger were no match for the Firefly 17 pdr so the Sherman having less armor had little impact as both sides could easily be penetrated by the other.

So was this a British Tactic or did our American cousins use it? Clearly the US not having about 1 in 4 tanks that could over match or at least take on Tigers and Panthers on in equal terms must have been a singular disadvantage.

Currently this type of overwhelming HE fire at heavy tanks is not well covered by us and will need some considerable thought to get it about right.

I think you are talking about morale results for a platoon.

I play Flames of War V3, so take that for what it's worth.
I've always felt that a tank platoon should be subject to the "Pinned" result that infantry are. This can come about for infantry and artillery by getting 5 hits, or getting hits from artillery or air strike. A morale check pass recovers.

An individual tank can get a result of "Bailed", which is a silly name for what could or should be called "Suppressed". Much of the mirth directed against FoW could have been allayed had the Bailed result been called Suppressed. Again a morale pass removes this state.
By the way, I get really annoyed at the "protected ammo" hand waving save.

FoW could "simulate" your example if a tank platoon were subject to Pin.
But it's a simple game, which I like. I don't like to gild the Lilly.
If that rule were in place, I would probably lose even more games. But it sure beats hiding from Tigers.

Winston,
My reading of the book as that it was basically the tank was losing its ability to target the enemy as the optics as such were being damaged and the rate of fire obscuring vision anyway. Added to the fact that eventually with that much pounding something was likely to fail that would be fatal. On that basis the withdrawal was more a logical decision than a random mass event and was controlled, by no means a rout but a tactical withdrawal. It certainly did not cover whole platoons so it would appear that your mechanism is inappropriate.

To be fair I am a bit biased, morale tests have always been obscure and somewhat arbitrary and I have seen few examples where it is that credible as a mechanism in of itself.

That it happens is undisputed but the "war game" solution to an observed phenomena has always looked poorly thought out. Becoming like many issues a "tradition" almost in spite of evidence to the contrary.

In our own rules we use a different mechanism which causes the unit to grind to a halt "pinned" you might say but without the need for unrelated die rolls based on fairly tenuous parameters. I need to look at our current systems to understand how we could best reflect this effect in a more direct way.

Mr. Smith makes some good points. How much realism and effort do you want in a game? In many games, the goal is fast and fun, and/or the tanks are tossed in as an extra (people want to see a Tiger fumble into their skirmish game, but they don't really want all the rules overhead of tank vs. tank). Most rules at least hit the basics, and reward flank or rear shots. I think a good many people want their tanks to look good, and function a bit like movie tanks. I think that 1/56 tanks look good on a kitchen table, but that 1/285 gives a potentially more realistic game at the expense of eye candy.

I think a different problem (which real armies have had to tackle) arises when you get a set of rules that gives you the tank-on-tank action you want. That is, learning the best tactics considering your tanks and the enemy tanks. Assuming you have the rule set you want (and it sounds like you want rules that will let you duplicate real-world situations and obtain real-world results), are you using the best tactics? Or are you having to learn as you go, by trial and error? (I'm often in the latter group.)

FWIW I've used the Jagdpanther 2nd ed rules and Jim Day's Panzer rules (the board game just screams for miniatures), and been happy. You might use the rules to set up some situations you describe, and see if you get the results you have read about.

I have read US accounts of WP occasionally employed by some Sherman tankers. Its chemical smoke could blind the opponent, asphyxiate its crew if drawn into the tank's interior and perhaps start a fire with a hit in the engine compartment.

B

UshCha, the tactical withdrawal problem is a wargame problem. In a one-off game, there is little incentive to protect your forces for the future. A campaign certainly helps.

I've always been partial to a mechanic in the old SPI game, Patrol. The winning side counted their victory points. However, once a force "broke," that force got essentially alternate victory points for every man it exited. The idea is that they would report how well they did against overwhelming odds. It gave incentive not to fight to the last man, and made for some lively discussions after the game was over.

I think that taking damaged optics into account is a step or three further than I want to go.

Back in the day, Ancients gaming was dominated by WRG rules, with all kinds of weapons, modifiers, ranks, etc were de rigeur.
And some rules, like the hilariously named "Fast Play" rules by Newbury took it even further. The most famous and probably most popular Ancients rules are now DBA and its derivatives. They were a reversal of the WRG approach, some of which I did not care for. But I digress.

And there is the infamous SPI Campaign for North Africa with the probably facetious rule that Italians needed more water than others to boil pasta.

I think that detail for the sake of detail is counterproductive. It's like adding rules for whose tanks had better mufflers, making them less likely to be detected. That could be done behind the curtain, and don't burden the player with it.

I agree, but I am completely OK with the "gun hit" result that could include any system necessary to load and fire the main gun.

We have always allowed hits the ability to "damage" tanks even if the calibre "could not" within the rules (or in real life).

As an example: during the fighting in Syria/Lebanon in 1941 the British/Aussies & Indians found their Boys AT rifles could not pierce a French R-35, but who is to say a lucky shot couldn`t jam the turret, kill the driver through his vision slit, go down the barrel when the breach was open or smash a track pin or drive sprocket (all of which i`ve read about actually happening).

You therefore have to have some flexibility within your rules – we do :)

Yea, I've read the same, e.g. white phosphorus/smoke vs. German tanks, which when hit, and covered in the stuff, makes the crew think their tank is on fire, so they are prone to bailing out.

Worth a try if you can't penetrate their armor.

Then of course, there's the lack of info in rules on tank platoon tactics and formations, turret facing while on patrol, defense, etc..

It was common for lead tanks to carry a WP round loaded to be used when first encountering enemy tanks or ATGs. As Blutarski mentioned it was used to blind the tanks/ATG while other tanks maneuvered to engage from better positions. Against ATGs it had the added advantage of spraying phosphorus around the area wounding and disrupting the crew.

In 'What a Tanker' it doesn't specify what ammo you are using (indeed, they ignore HEAT rounds for Panzer 3N's, but I digress too!)- I too have read Render, and assume my Shermans are plastering the Boche with HE, or AP as appropriate.

I think I read somewhere about some US tanks using a couple of Shermans to smoke out the Tiger/Panther, leaving the other tanks in the platoon pushed round the flank to take it out from the rear.

I think that taking damaged optics into account is a step or three further than I want to go.

I would agree. But I think there are mechanisms available for implementing what UshCha has described that are quite acceptable and playable.

I've given this a fair bit of thought. The problem is the outlying odds … do you want rules mechanisms that add complexity for the < 5% likely events?

Your first answer may be "no", but consider how many rounds are fired in a typical company v. company, or battalion v. battalion engagement. 1-in-20 (5%) results are actually pretty common in AARs, because, well, most engagements involve more than 20 shooting events.

I think the best approach is to consolidate multiple <1% events into a couple of ~5% results. Then you can play with the unlikely having a role based on volume of fire.

I think ODGW's Mein Panzer handles this quite well.

Mein Panzer provides not only for dead or alive, but for turret kills and mobility kills.

A turret kill basically means any weapon in the turret (or superstructure if a casemated vehicle) is no longer usable. But hull guns and externally mounted guns are still workable, and the tank is still mobile.

You don't know if the optics were damaged, or the gun jammed, or the turret race was hit, or the gun barrel itself took damage, or whatever. The game doesn't burden you with mechanisms to do all those various kinds of damage. You only have a mechanism that disarms your turret.

A mobility kill means the tank can not move forward or backward. One mobility kill means it can still turn it's facing. Two mobility kills means it can not even do that.

Probably means the tank was tracked. But could mean the driver stripped the final drive in his panic due to a shell striking the armor right next to his ear. Or that the driver's vision devices have all been shot out. Or they had a brief engine fire and the engine took enough damage that it is hardly running at all. Or the driver was injured by not closing his direct vision port, the fool. You can make up whatever narrative you want, but the game just says you can't move.

These partial kill results can happen even if your weapon does not penetrate the armor. They are low probability events. They occur as a result on the same die role you make for normal penetration and kill.

So there is almost no additional overhead for this structure. No incremental roles. Not much in modifiers. They give a "volume of fire" effect, simply by virtue of being low probability events. So a Tiger II may not be at much risk of penetration from Shermans, but if it takes 6, 8, 10 hits from 75mm guns it will likely wind up loosing some portion of it's capabilities. The result is that when your Tiger II is getting pounded, you WANT to pull it back. No morale throw tells you to. If you don't, it may become a mobility kill and then you can't pull it back. Or if you sit there sucking up hits too long you will lose your turret, and then you've got your biggest and most valuable tank with nothing but a hull MG. And if you wind up with both a mobility and a turret kill your beloved shiny Tiger just sits and waits for infantry close-assaults it can't defend itself from.

FWIW I've used the Jagdpanther II rules … and been happy.

This is my second-favorite ruleset these days. It too provides mechanisms for low-probability damage results from non-penetrating hits.

But I'm not fully satisfied with its penetration probabilities. For early war armored combat it seems to be OK (thin armor and weak guns). But I think the armor penetration mechanism is too linear.

I think it would feel better if it were somehow an accelerated function after the penetration exceeds the protection level. In my reading it doesn't take a lot of extra penetration reserve to make penetration very likely. For example if a gun penetrates 100mm of armor (penetration factor of 10), and a tank has 80mm of armor (armor equivalent, given slope factors, etc. with an armor factor of 8), then a hit is rather likely to penetrate. In JP II that hit is about 20% likely to penetrate. And if the gun penetrates 120mm (penetration factor of 12), and the armor is 80mm, in JPII that round is only 40% likely to penetrate.

Bzzzzt! Thanks for trying, but I'm afraid that is not the answer we were looking for. Next contestant, please.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Radley-Walters also used the smoke then flank them tactic with great success.

It might be worth viewing the incidental damage issue from the point of view of "The Iron Law of Self-Preservation".

> If a vehicle is in action and the TC is shot down in the turret hatch, or the turret is jammed, or the gun or gun sight is disabled, the likelihood is high that the vehicle will withdraw to safety (defilade, hard cover, pop smoke and reverse, etc).

> If a vehicle's movement capability is disabled, the crew is quite likely to abandon the vehicle, unless perhaps it is (a) some specially heroic crew in a KV2 in 1941 or in a Tiger in 1942, or (b) swarmed by screaming Japanese anti-tank suicide squads.

> If the vehicle is set afire, everyone out ASAP.

> If the vehicle should become mired, bogged, ditched, drowned or otherwise immobilized by nature, everyone out if taken under fire by a weapon capable of killing it.

It seems to me that composing lists of all possible incidental damage incidents, each with it own unique characteristics will only succeed in creating a 21st century version of Tractics.
….. B is crossing himself as he writes this … ;-)

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

I was horrified how poor war games were in general covering tank tactics.

I see it as more about the gamer's abilities as much as the rules if not more. And bottom line how much detail do you want and what scale is the game/battle ? A skirmish game say Plt or smaller should have more detail than an Plt-Co., game etc.

At a Co-Bn level which I prefer, you either hit the target or not.

The hit is either critical or superficial … Critical = No save roll,you are KO'd. Superficial = roll for save.

If save roll is good, the hit did no real damage … and the AFV has no loss of capabilities.

Critical hit = well … You are KO'd, i.e. dead …

There as so many things that can happen in battle. IMO why the AFV is KO'd has no real meaning. At least in a game at that scale. A smaller skirmish game, e.g. Plt or smaller … well then that is where the detail should come in, IMO …

You're dead or you're not …

For a game like Flames, I don't think it'd be hard to add a 'lesser damage' effect.

Let's take the 'round failed to kill the tank but scared the crew' result (called 'Bailed' in Flames) and change the name of the effect to 'minor damage'. Normal hit and damage rules still apply, so Penetrating hits would roll for Minor Damage after a failed Firepower roll, and Glancing hits would roll for Minor Damage after a successful Firepower roll.

This would add one additional die roll to the combat resolution phase. Roll a d6:
1-2, vehicle has been tracked (is now 'Bogged' in Flames terms, skill roll to recover);
3-4, vehicle's main gun is damaged (will need a new status for Flames, no recovery possible?);
5-6, Crew Stunned ('Bailed' in Flames terms, morale roll to recover).

Tracked and Bailed are easy to create diorama markers to represent.
- Tracked, you need a spare length of track to put behind the vehicle. Older PSC tanks usually come with two sets of suspension, one with separate tracks and one with the entire track&suspension as one piece. Easy-peasy.
- Bailed, you need a dismounted tank crew (which used to come in BF tank blisters! also easy-peasy.)

Main gun damaged would be tough, since most people use 'turret removed' to represent a dead tank. Maybe a small piece of 'black smoke' around the gun? Dead tanks would have lots of black smoke plus flames. Gray/white smoke is masking smoke.

I also like the idea of alternate victory conditions after an army suffers a morale failure, gaining VPs for every unit that escapes. I've used "surviving army points" as a tiebreaker in tournaments before.

I remember one of the first demo games I did at a major convention and how all the veteran gamers complained that you could actually damage armor by firing HE. Then they complained that guns could be knocked out but the tank could still move. I rapidly learned that 99% of gamers out there talk about realism but really want Beer & Pretzels. So companies like FoW and Bolt Actions make colored beer and gold plated pretzels and gamers go wild. There are dozens of better rules sets out there but only the 1% buy or play them. Cheers!

I've also read Tank Action by Lt. David Render.
He took over a Sherman troop just after Normandy and stayed as the commander until the wars end. It's interesting to note that in all his time in the war he only ever brewed one enemy tank. A Hetzer with a long shot. All the rest he used HE to do damage and discomfit the German crew. He did just that with a Panther, hitting it three times with HE before it could fire back missing his tank. The Panther then withdrew.

A firefly in his regiment called Akilla destroyed 5 tanks in one day. Left to right: Sgt J Dring; Tpr Hodkin, Tpr A Denton; Tpr E Bennett; L/Cpl S Gould.

Rapid Fire has a unique way of dealing with damage. Once hit, the player rolls for damage, which could be destroyed, heavy damage or light damage.
Heavy damage the vehicle cannot move or shoot in the next turn. Two light damage equals a heavy damage, two heavy damage equals destroyed.
If a unit of tanks receives heavy damage or has destroyed vehicles to one or more of the unit, morale is rolled. If failed a unit can retreat to cover, or if heavily damaged abandon the tank, which can then subsequently be re-crewed.

What?!…you mean tank crews would evacuate perfectly good tanks when they suffered non-vital hits?

"What?!…you mean tank crews would evacuate perfectly good tanks when they suffered non-vital hits?"

Reminds me of a Command Decision game that I played years ago-- a Tiger II platoon took flanking fire from a previously concealed 6-pdr. battery firing APDS. A solid hit but no penetration: the unit failed their morale check (very hard to do) and bailed. One very P.O.'d (take your pick of whatever)-fuhrer SS.

Assume coopman is being facetious…

If not, well, once you've been hit once, they know your range and will certainly hit you again. Either move the tank or die.

In It never Snows in September is an account of a Stug crew in Arnhem who just climbed out and ran for the minute they came under fire, and just left the Stug sitting there.

My German landlord said he and his crew mates bailed from their perfectly good tank when the Tank Commander, fighting crew exposed, only had his lower half fall back into the turret. One of three tanks he crewed that he abandoned.

Oh year I could see why they bailed !

And as we all know, historically some tank crews abandoned they AFVs when just coming under fire, etc. That was one of the things I meant when I said "There as so many things that can happen in battle."

So in game play, that can easily be covered in a Critical or Superficial hit. Why they abandoned their AFV is not really relevant IMO. They took fire and bailed. For game time purposes for that game the AFV is gone/out of action.

What happens after the battle/game is not important for this little "snippet" of time the game covers. Whether that time frame is minutes or hours, etc. Now in a campaign game then you might take other things into consideration. But that to could be easily achieved with a die roll. I.e. the vehicle is repairable/recoverable or not.

Being in 3 Mech Bns in my distant youth. A lot of things can "deadline" a vehicle, believe me. If it Can't shoot, move or communicate it is non-mission capable …

Israelis stopped and repelled a whole column of Syrian tanks with nothing more than jeeps with .50 cal MGs during Yom Kippur War. What you cannot see is extremely scary, even if it is "not there".

These effects can be handled by critical hit and morale rules with a reasonalbe level of playability and realism.

In Combat Command an unmodfied roll of "10" (on a d10) allows you to recoil the die and add the next result – allowing for unlikely "kills". A tank platoon taking a hit must roll a Morale Check – failure renders the platoon combat ineffective (for that game) and while success leaves it "Pinned" (can't move -2 to shooting no defensive fire). Pin can be removed with a later Rally check. You can also "smoke" individual platoons giving them negative hit modifiers.

All that said it still should not be a good idea for 7.5N armed M4s to engage Panthers frontally without significant numerical superiority.

(By the way Command Decision is a platoon level game so a negative result did not represent a crew abandoning a single tank but a general morale failure of that unit).

So yes these factors can and have been realistically handled without resort to complex critical hit charts etc. Just need the right game.

TomT

When my son was on a deployment to the mid-east (Yemen?) they were using a drone to observe a Saudi tank (not sure if it was US, Russian or British made) advancing. It came under automatic small arms fire and the crew immediately bailed and left the scene with no observable damage to the tank. Most likely they thought RPG's were going to follow.

In the rules I'm using, the effect of HE fire against armored vehicles generates an Engagement Delay for the crew. This means any firing orders turn will be increased a number of turns. This simulates the crew being dazed, temporarily losing sight of the target, etc with a small chance of damage to turret or gun components. Multiple hits will force you to back away out of LOS because you will not be able to get a shot off. WP will have a more long-lasting screening effect and a small chance of causing an engine fire.

The Sherman, being quick on the first shot because of commander turret override, vertical stabilizer and fast turret traverse, normally will get off the first shot against German Tigers and Panthers.

Sherman tank crews' last great advantage was in crew experience, even though Germany had been at war six years before most of the American tankers invaded France. In early August, Adolf Hitler ordered that all new Panthers sent to the West would go to new armored formations rather than depleted divisions. Thus, Germany's veteran tankers received lighter Mark IVs, while new, inexperienced crews got the better tanks. So whenever Americans faced off against the Panther, they were usually more skilled in the tactics of close combat, like at Arracourt

Also, HE rounds impacting on the turret front can have fragments penetrate the 12mm-15mm hull roof armor or collapse it and maybe jam the turret ring.

I use a D20 for hit location. Rolling a 20 is another D20 roll for a special hit location (5% chance) that can be a weak area (reduced armor protection), turret ring, cupola, hull/coax mg, slight ricochet (decrease penetration) or the round breaks up for no damage. You can never be 100% sure of penetration and damage results.

Example: link

Wolfhag

In Flames of War, a crew can bail out multiple times during a battle. There is about a 50% chance of remounting the vehicle on the next turn, so a bail out might be a very quick thing.

wolfhag,
I think you are on the right track. I need a bit more thought as its necessary to weed out the unlikely rare event from a more commonly occurring event. If my reading of the said book is correct the forcing of heavy tanks to withdraw was a common event so it can be modeled and is useful to the simulation.

Personally modeling Rare and unusual events to me does not improve the simulation.

Certainly these sorts of actions are unlikely with very small games and almost certainly not with 28mm games which are very infantry centered. They have to be so as to avoid the daft look. They can only cover a very small terrain area or give up simulation for exponential ranges which is a killer for compliance with the real world.

What?!…you mean tank crews would evacuate perfectly good tanks when they suffered non-vital hits?

Yes, John Simken's tank 'Killed' a Tiger by firing 10 rounds of HE at it, apparently one round ricocheted off the mantle and hit the drivers roof – it didn't penetrate, but caused the interior of the armour flake, making the driver think they had been penetrated, so the crew bailed, leaving a perfectly preserved Tiger!

<<<Sherman tank crews' last great advantage was in crew experience, even though Germany had been at war six years before most of the American tankers invaded France.>>>

Lucky that the Americans invaded France on their own so that the rest of the Western Allies didn't have to.

*rolls eyes*

That is not at all what Wolf was alluding to. He was talking about US M4 crews. And didn't go into detail about other armies AFV crews. He was using the US M4 crew as an example. That would be quite a long post/list to comment including all the other crews by nation and each AFV by type, etc. And experience, etc., of each, etc. E.g. UK crews in Cromwells, Churchills, Matildas, etc., etc.

He, like I and many others here understood what he was saying. We all know who all the Allied Forces were in France after Normandy. As well as before and on other fronts, etc., including the East and North Africa.

Wherethestreetshavnoname,
Ouch!!!! I guess I deserved that!

However, let me explain. I was looking up info on the Battle of Arracourt and the statement about US crews was specific to that battle. I did a quick unedited cut and past which is what you read. However, I do plead to a high degree of ignorance of British manufactured tanks as the Eastern Front is what I'm currently working on. I don't consider myself a fanboy of any nations tanks. I do plead to being a fanboy of the US Marines though, I just can't help it.

I did some training with the Royal Marines, played and coached (my son played before he went in the Marines too) Rugby for almost 20 years, put up the Rugby team from Land's End at my house for 10 days (40 years ago). I partied with the Royal Marines Rugby team from the HMS Hermes and spent the night on the carrier waking up to breakfast on the ship with a severe hangover (Port Everglades, Florida). I still have an RM emblem they gave me.

If my travel plans had worked out I'd be in England right now but the Rhine River was too low for our boat cruise. I'm rescheduled for mid-November of this year.

Hopefully, you can find it in your heart to forgive me, but then maybe NOT because I'm Irish!

Sincerely,
Wolfhag

So, Wolfhag, I hesitate to ask but where on your anatomy did you find that RM emblem tattooed when you woke up with a severe hangover?

Been there, got the scars.

Basha,
Unfortunately, I missed out on that experience. All I got was the emblem from their beret.

Wolfhag

it didn't penetrate, but caused the interior of the armour flake, making the driver think they had been penetrated

Aka Spalling
And while I dont usually resort to wikipedia the definition under antitank warfare is accurate enough
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spall

I do plead to being a fanboy of the US Marines though, I just can't help it.

Thanks Ushcha,
I agree that modeling rare and unusual events do not improve the "pure" simulation, but I've found it does increase the player's overall experience, makes the game more unpredictable, generates some suspense and is entertaining. However, can anyone define "rare and unusual" and their frequency? What should it be based on? Should it be random or based on statistically generated events? In the end, it's up to the designer, how he wants to integrate it into the game and use it to deliver the overall experience. Just like anything else, it can be overused.

I play smaller scenarios that would historically take 5-15 minutes with 2-4 dozen vehicles. Using the rules I've developed, I could play a scenario that would be statistically accurate and give somewhat historical results without using any rare and unusual events. However, it would mostly be tedious, predictable and boring. I want something that is unpredictable (but not random) and entertaining with initiative determined by player decisions, crew type and weapons platform performance with the right mix of friction, rare occurrences, and the occasional SNAFU. It needs to be unpredictable but not random with some unexpected surprises along the way to make it interesting, suspenseful and entertaining. That's what I strive for and what I've found players like.

When players are aware that a "non-optimum" event can have a 5% chance to occur with each die roll it generates suspense and anticipation. However, the events must be pertinent and linked to the actions which are occurring.

When you have tanks that historically had shot traps, exposed weak areas and highly sloped/angled armor (70+ degrees) you should get more "rare and unusual" events that can be represented statistically and are not entirely random. By analyzing the armor layout and diagrams of various armored fighting vehicles compared with the typical round-to-round dispersion you can get a somewhat statistical estimation of the frequency of hitting one of the weak areas, shot traps, turret ring or lower turret edge (easier penetration and jams), and compound angle sides that may generate a ricochet, etc.

With the expectation that nothing is 100% assured it makes the game more interesting. Firing HE at a target that cannot be AP penetrated in the hopes of a calculated chance of damage, a slight chance of a ricochet or a weak spot being hit makes the game more interesting and unpredictable too. No tank is 100% immune all of the time. A shot at point blank range does not guarantee a hit (SNAFU).

I'm attempting to recreate a playable way to target the weak spots. If you look at the Panther Armor and Damage Layout image,

link

you'll see the Special Hit Location events are somewhat statistically generated (my target area analysis with some abstraction of course). By allowing a +/-4 Precision Aim modification to the D20 hit location die roll the player can attempt to target one of these vulnerable spots (Special Hit Location on a die roll of 20) under the right conditions (range limitation with the target and shooter static). Why? Because rounds will tend to cluster around the aim point at closer ranges. At longer ranges, the dispersion would most likely generate a hit randomly anywhere on the target which is why you generally aim center mass. I don't think I'm the first one to do this.

The Special Hit Location chances without the Precision Aim +/-4 hit location modifier are:
Hull MG .5%, Coax MG .5%, Turret Ring 1.5%, Cupola .75%, Round Breaks Up .75%, Partial Deflection 1.25%. With the +/-4 modifier those values are 4-5x higher. These are fairly low chances of occurrence but they can be increased under the right conditions. Each vehicle has their own customized data card and I'm attempting to model the chances based on the actual physical dimensions and area of the real target. Non-penetrating hits can cause spall damage too.

At longer ranges (generally over 0.7 seconds time of flight or 500m+), statistically, a Special Hit will be rolled for every 20 hits. At ranges below 600m with the Precision Aim +/-4 modifier, it will be about every 4-5 hits. Now close range becomes much more dangerous. A SNAFU can happen to the shooter 5% of the time too. SNAFU results are misfires, jams, shell breaks up, equipment malfunction, decreased accuracy, etc. These things don't happen very often (but they did happen in WWII) but when they do it can be pivotable in the game and creates some suspense with each roll of the dice. I admit it's somewhat unrealistic and arbitrary but players seem to like that so I keep it.

In addition to Special Hit Location damage, there may also be a chance of a ricochet. The defending player makes the roll for that. I could have factored that into the hit/miss chance but letting the defending player attempt to "save" his tank may not be realistic but it's a real crowd pleaser and does reflect some special characteristics that different vehicle models have. A T-34 will have more chances for a ricochet than a Tiger I. Being angled at 45 degrees to the shooter will also generate more chances for a ricochet too, that's a tactic player can use.

If this sounds confusing or complicated just remember, it's basically no different than any other hit location chart, just a little more detail. About 70% of the hits will take two die rolls (hit location and damage level). A few times in a game it may take three die rolls (partial deflection, partial penetration). There are no calculations or additional charts. Since the data cards are customized for each vehicle model there are very few die roll modifiers. It's no more complicated than most rules sets I've run across.

I have had people play that played Tractics and have not received any negative feedback about complications. Players with real tank crew experience gave it a positive review.

Wolfhag

<<<<Wherethestreetshavnoname,
Ouch!!!! I guess I deserved that!>>>>

It's OK. No harm, no foul. I forgive you.

:)

Long live the King!

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
I must admit to a disagreement, adding rare events certainly in my group would be seen as a VERY definite detraction. The games are already complex in terms of strategy and tactics and adding unneccessary

UshCha,
You are the designer and know best.

I'm keeping mine. I like the suspense and "color" it creates in a 1:1 game. The players like it and adding 4-6 extra die rolls in a 2-3 hour game is not a big deal.

Wolfhag

Ushcha,

I was horrified how poor war games were in general covering tank tactics. In general the basic detail is far less than say infantry. It was why we wrote our own rules to get at least some of the basics better. It is interesting that even we may have missed some issues.

Do you have any other examples?

Wolfhag

The book is a real eye opener. In terms of wargaming rules, it seems that some tanks should have a higher rate of fire than other tanks, just as infantry MG's have a higher ROF than rifles. Also, shooting HE at a tank should have a chance to cause a morale test, tricking crews to bail out.

In my home-baked rules, when firing at a tank at close range (500m or less), you have the option of specifying a particular part of the tank you are aiming at -- hull, turret, or suspension -- but there's still a chance that you will hit something else, or miss entirely.

Also: If your tank takes a hit that could have penetrated but didn't (because of a die roll), you have to pass a morale check to NOT bail out.

In "Another River, Another Town: A teenage Tank Gunner Comes of Age In Combat--1945" link author John Irwin (3rd Armored Division) recounts bailing out of the tank three times in one day. The head of the column stops so that they're stopped in a town, they get out. They back into a house for cover and get stuck, they get out. I don't recall number three offhand but whenever the tank was stopped they got out and moved away from what they felt was a sitting duck. He even remarked on the courage of the driver in getting back in to unstick the tank before the town was cleared. It seems that an unseen threat held great sway on not staying in the tank if unable to move it to safety. A seen threat could be dealt with.

donlowery,
How did you arrive at the 500m range for the ability to fire at the hull, turret or suspension?

I arrived at the same range for optics up to 3x and 800m for 6x. I did it by taking my variable power rifle scope to the top of a hill and sighting in on different objects and vehicles.

Wolfhag

We have a last ditch option for hitting hull at 500m or less if you can't do damage to the tank otherwise. Not good odds as you miss more as now as you are not aiming at the centre of mass. 500m based on going for a walk and looking at ground and cards on the roads. 500m looked a good round if approximate estimate of the plausible.

Generaly tanks get hit only below 1m 1/3 of the time due mainly to undulations in the ground. So you need to be closer and have some risk as undulations below 1m are not normaly directly modelled in our rules.

Ushcha,
I have certain terrain designated as "undulating" and small depressions that give the vehicle "suspension down" protection that would protect the lower 1m of the target.

Wolfhag