"Hits on armor: typical results" Topic

Hi all, does anybody have good research on typical results/impacts of armor vs armor combat. Basically, what percent exploded right away, what percent had a track blown off or engine damage, what percent of the time had their turrets jam or optics destroyed, what percent of times did crews get stunned/shaken/shocked. etc. I play I Ain't Been, Shot Mum and the armor rules are nice and easy however I would like to make them easier rather than keeping track of hits to gun sights, engine damage so you results are limited to: Explodes, Penetrating Hit-crew bails out, Hull MG knocked out, co-axial or turret MG knocked out, Main Gun knocked out, etc. thanks

The old Avalon Hill boardgame Tobruk had very detailed hit effects based on a lot of research by an obsessed game designer. But yes, then time to look for another target.I'm in your camp. The real thing you want to know is the tank still shooting at you. Better yet, is it on fire and you can see the crew scampering away. If not, keep firing. If

Dan in Vermont,
There is no easy way to do what you want. I too like to get better detail on hit locations, armor value, ricochet chance, and behind armor locations that can be damaged like engine/transmission, fuel, and ammo in a playable manner.

However, about 8 years ago I came up with a solution. The book "WWII Ballistics and Armor" and the US Army Ballistics Research Lab have the formulas for determining the average dispersion/MPI of a shot. There are also available the real ballistic tables (velocity, maximum ordinate, etc.) for the most common WWII and Cold War guns, some of which were developed by the CIA. I took this data and "error budget" average MPI information into a spreadsheet using their formula in 100m increments.

Rather than the player rolling a D20 for a hit or miss like regular games the D20 roll randomizes the average MPI distance like a bell curve. No player computations are needed! The first Ranging shot includes an average 20% range estimation error. Ace crews have a 10% range estimation error and poor crews have a 30% range estimation error.

Accuracy penalties (poor crew, moving target, poor lighting conditions, etc.) push the accuracy range out further in 100m increments which means a greater dispersion. An accuracy bonus, like an Ace crew, is in lesser 100m increments decreasing the average dispersion.

The next step is to model the target in different aspects. Using the video game examples (see below) I marked locations where the engine/transmission (green), ammo (red), and fuel (blue) are located.

The above image (an older one) shows the Tiger I front aspect. The Russian player has laid his transparent gun sight reticule over the target in the oval area for aiming center mass. The player can aim anywhere in the oval. At shorter ranges, he can select any aim point.

Th lower right image shows how big of a hole will be left depending on the size of the round.

After "aiming" he rolls a D20 and two decimal dice (1-00 result). The 1-00 result will tell you the direction the round went as seen around the target reticle. The D20 result randomizes the average MPI value and a ruler is laid from the aim point to the direction the round went.

Now you can tell the result of where the round lands, the armor value, and the ricochet chance (not in this example) if the fuel, transmission, engine, or ammo is hit, and what crew members may take a direct hit.

There is no need for a target size modifier or a hit location roll. If firing at a moving target a single die roll will determine how far to the right or left the round went depending on the target speed, aspect, and range.

Realistically, rounds tend to group and disperse around the aiming point. They don't "randomly" hit somewhere on the target unless the average dispersion is as large as the target.

This could be adapted to any game by replacing the gunnery and damage rules with this system. Most systems require a die roll to determine hit or miss, hit location, penetration chance, and damage roll. This system does all of that, in greater detail, with one die roll.

Depending on where the player aims, virtually any target location can be hit. We've had exposed tank commanders get hit in the face, a Sherman 75 hit a Tiger I gunsight making the gun useless, rounds ricochet off armor surfaces with a 70+ degree compound angle, vision ports and turret rings are hit, etc. Players can aim at turret rings, vision ports, bow machine gun locations, ammo and fuel locations, etc.

For that amount of detail, it actually does not slow down the game very much as compared to other games.

A simpler version is a customized critical hit chart. When rolling a D20 for the hit location a 20 is a critical hit. Below is the one for the German Panther reflecting weak points that can be hit from different target aspects.

Wolfhag

Wrt the OP, it is notable that so many 'destroyed' tanks are recoverable overnight and in action again the next day, many more back in action in a couple of days. Which implies that damage is minor or non existant, but in the heat of battle, enough to get the crew to bail. I've read of crews abandoning tanks which just stalled their engines, or were shot at but not actually hit at all.

Obviously if it has exploded or been burned out, it is actually destroyed, but I'd suggest that at least 50% of the time damage is actually pretty minor – track hit or similar.

I find that players enjoy the detail of what has been damaged.

However I personally prefer just to know "is the tank still in action or not?" unless it is a skirmish tank game.

A similar problem are rules which want to portray a battle but focus on the nature of officer wounds.

martin

tractics was a really good system for what you want.

Wolfhag, I think you made Dan's point. But Dan, while you could no doubt devise a two die-roll system--one die roll to hit; one die roll to determine damage--of greater or less accuracy, any time you're modelling individual tanks, you've got an information problem. Unless the tank exploded and the turret came down somewhere else the two sides don't know the same thing about the damage. The firing tank knows the target tank has stopped moving and firing. It can't know that the target tank has lost power and jammed the turret, but has surviving crew capable of firing back when they're given a decent shot. The target tank knows it's filling up with smoke. It can't tell the hit was a smoke round.

Any time you're playing tank=tank, either you're in skirmish/RPG country, or it's pretty much no effect/mobility kill/out of action. If you want to keep track of jammed turrets and optics disabled, you're playing an RPG. They're complicated.

Unless the tank exploded and the turret came down somewhere else the two sides don't know the same thing about the damage. The firing tank knows the target tank has stopped moving and firing. It can't know that the target tank has lost power and jammed the turret, but has surviving crew capable of firing back when they're given a decent shot. The target tank knows it's filling up with smoke. It can't tell the hit was a smoke round.

I totally agree. However, the solution for a game is easy. Just implement a historical "Limited Intelligence" rule. Use the detailed damage rules but unless the target is on fire or brewed up (positive visual ID) the player must shoot at it again or at the bailing crew. Many times it took 10-15 seconds for an internal fire to flare up enough or explode for the shooter to see it. That's enough time for most guns to historically reload and shoot again.

I use the same Limited Intelligence rule. Many players don't like shooting at a target that they unrealistically know is no longer a danger to them (immobilized, gun KO, etc.). So to reward historical game play I give points depending on whether the enemy target is immobilized, on fire, or brewed up. I also give points for killing enemy crew members. It seems to work.

Historically, it took more than one penetration to ensure a target was no longer able to be used:

If players want to play an RPG tank-tank game so what?

Wolfhag

"If players want to play an RPG tank-tank game so what?"

Oh, I agree. No one else's business. But no good them choosing to play such, and then complaining about the complications: they're baked in. The limited intelligence is a good one--almost certainly the way to go.

thanks, all! good ideas to think about….and yes, I remember back in the day rolling all those Dice in Tobruk….and checking the penetration table. Tobruk was revolutionary for its day.
Since I play IABSM, I am trying to make it more simple and get away from tracking damage to gunsights or engine damage. I just want simple results like Exploded, Knocked-out or Immobilized… Wolfhag: thanks for including that chart. I have included that concept when I play IABSM when a tank or AT gun typically have 3 actions (3 shots in a turn). Unless their first shot causes an explosion, they are required to shoot that 2nd shot even if the first one caused a KO but not an explosion. This squares with reading accounts of the battle of bulge when 57mm AT crews would pump multiple shots into a tank to be sure it was well and truly knocked out.

I've talked to modern tankers who tell me this is current US Army training: they are to keep firing at enemy AFVs until they explode or are burning.

You can tell the US has no tradition of beutepanzers.

IIRC German crews aimed at the rear side of a T-34/76. The fuel tanks were on both sides of the engine. Penetration through the side armor punctures the fuel tanks and destroys the engine. Even though diesel fuel is harder to ignite than gas the engine and transmission were normally enough to start a fire.

The ammo storage was fairly hard to hit because it was kept in containers in the lower hull which also served as the floor for the turret crew. Penetration through the upper hull front could end up hitting the engine as the transmission was in the rear of the engine.

In that famous Pershing-Panther in Cologne encounter the Pershing gunner said he kept pumping shells into the Panther even though it was on fire from the first round because the gun was pointed directly at him and as far as he knew maybe the gunner would fire at any second. It was not about killing the crew it was self-survival.

Wolfhag