TOAW WWII Equipment AT Value?

[Tcao]

Hi,
I have a question, how did the game designer set up the WWII equipment's AT value?
I remember on Chinese TOAW forum someone believe the AT Value = the gun's AP/APHE/APC penetration/90 degree at 500m divided by 10, then rounded.
Is that correct?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Chicom Redneck

Hi,
I have a question, how did the game designer set up the WWII equipment's AT value?
I remember on Chinese TOAW forum someone believe the AT Value = the gun's AP/APHE/APC penetration/90 degree at 500m divided by 10, then rounded.
Is that correct?

There are equipment design threads and an invaluable (as usual) tutorial by Bob Cross ->

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/562 ... tabase.pdf

Klink, Oberst

[Tcao]

Thanks Oberst

In fact, I have done several equipment design mod myself for fun.
I have checked several equipment design threads, went through 1 or 2 pages, but the discussion are more focused on adding new equipment. (Maybe I didn't find the correct thread?)

I am curious because I found several TOAW equipment's AT value is abnormal

for example 76.2mm/L42 F-34 and Zis-3 can penetrate 69mm at 500m,
So this might be the reason in TOAW, T-34/76, SU-76's AT value are 7.

75mm/L48 KwK40 can penetrate 110mm at 500m,
IVH, StuG III and 75mm AT Gun (assume it is Pak40)'s AT Value is 11

the following equipment's AT value are a little strange.

Pz IVF2 75mm/L43 AT=8 (should it be 9?)
Marder I AT=5，I thought Marder I is a Pak 40 on Lorrine? even there are some Marder I and II were armed with Pak38 50mm/L60, it should be 6? at least in TOAW PzIII J, III L 50mm KwK39 and 50mm AT Gun's AT=6
T34/85 and SU-85 AT=13, looks like they are assumed to armed with post-war ammuniation.


and here we have M4/76, armed with 76mm M1 gun, and it's AT Value=16? wow, it's no longer a Ronson lighter, it's a cat killer.

[Lobster]

All of your numbers other than those from TOAW are based on what source? Different sources will give you different numbers. A 76mm M1 with HVAP will give you approximately 150% more penetration than a 75mm/L48 making it capable of killing all sorts of cats at 500m (Harry Woodman, 1991, Tank Armament in WW2),(Bovington Tank Museum, 1975, Fire and Movement).

Also, M4A1 with the Caterpillar engine (I think mostly went to Marines) and the M4A2 (this was the type sent to the Soviet 'allies') both used diesel. The nickname 'ronson' is almost impossible to find when searching wartime documents. It can only be found in correspondence related to Canadians, not American GIs. Another one of those overblown WW2 un-trueisms. Of course you can find it in all sorts of post WW2 literature and movies. There is some evidence that the Germans referred to Shermans used in the West as 'Tommy Cookers'. What really made them explode was poor design of ammunition storage. The M4A2 used wet storage and was much less prone to brewing up, not because it used diesel, but because it used effective munitions stowage.

BTW, almost every German tank engine also used gasoline, with one exception, Maybach HL230P30. Why are they not named after German lighters?

The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles - The Comprehensive Guide to Over 900 Armored Fighting Vehicles From 1915 to the Present Day, General Editor: Christopher F. Foss, 2002
Panzer Truppen The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1933-1942, Thomas L. Jentz, 1996
Panzer Truppen The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943-1945, Thomas L. Jentz, 1996
Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, 1999
The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, Chris Bishop, 1998

This article and in particular this page, http://socyberty.com/history/m4-sherman ... hat-bad/3/ (might load slowly), helps illustrate how Hollywood tends to bend the facts to their liking. For instance in the movie Patton when he was surveying a European battlefield after a night action saying how you could tell the Germans were defeated because they were now using horses and wagons. LMAO. They used them the ENTIRE WAR as did the Soviets.

[Curtis Lemay]

The M4/76 in the game is probably a Korean War version. (Remember Norm's Korea scenario). For use in WWII it should have a reduced AT value. I believe there was a problem with the shells being too hard, making them brittle, that wasn't fixed till very late in the war.

[SMK-at-work]

"shatter gap" is het phenomena whereby projectiles that theoretically should penetrate shatter instead - there' a bit of info on it on the 'net - lots of wargamers having discussion

[sPzAbt653]

The Marder I is probably an error. The Marder series was reported to use the 75mm or the Soviet 76mm converted. The Marder I in TOAW has the stats for a 47mm gun. Maybe Norm had a source that some were equipped with the 47mm.

[Lobster]

These are the variants of Marder I:

1) 7.5 cm Pak 40/1 auf Geschützwagen Lorraine Schlepper (f), SdKfz 135, Marder I
2) 7.5 cm Pak 40/1 auf Lorraine Schlepper(f) (Marder I) SdKfz 135
3) Panzerjaeger für 7.5cm Pak 40(Sf) Lorraine Schlepper
4) PzJaeg LrS für 7.5cm Pak 40/1

Could very well be confusing them with this one: 4·7cm Pak( t) auf PzKJ>fW 3S R( f)( Pz)ig Renault R35)
It appears to me the chassis may have had the same designation of sd. kfz 135 but not 100% sure, one using the Lorraine 37L Tractor Supply Tank chassis the other using a Renault R35 tank chassis. [&:]

[Tcao]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The M4/76 in the game is probably a Korean War version. (Remember Norm's Korea scenario). For use in WWII it should have a reduced AT value. I believe there was a problem with the shells being too hard, making them brittle, that wasn't fixed till very late in the war.

M10 TD in TOAW also has the AT value at 16, I don't think M10 Wolverine served in Korea. And I think AT=16 come from M1gun's APCR/HVAP ammo M93, at 500yards, M93 can penetrate 157mm armor at 30 degree.

I agree M4/76 and M10's AT value should be reduced for WWII scenario, otherwise it makes TOAW tank battle weird. I remember this is a TOAW's mechanism, when AT value >= Armor value(no matter what the armor value number is), the possiblity of penetration = 100% (equal to destroyed in TOAW), if AT value<armor value, then the possiblity of penetration range from 0%~99%, a formula is going to be decided what the chance is (I can't remember where I can find the formula in the handbook, appreciate if somebody can help me)
so it means M4/76 and M10 TD can kill Tiger (Armor=10) or Panther(Armor=13) with 100% possiblity, it can even kill Kingtiger (18) at very high possiblity. In reality, M1 76mm gun performe poorly in front of Tiger and Panther, regular AP ammo M79, which is 109mm/500yard/30degree, shattered on Tiger's surface harden armor. it also has fair chance to penetrate Panther's front turrent and low hull, but it has almost 0% chance to defeat panther's upper hull.
the other explanation here is this AT=16 value is for M93 APCR/HVAP, but it is weird too. in real world, M93 is very rare, most of the tank can only get 3-4rounds. Also In TOAW if M4/76 can have this high APCR AT value, why other WWII tanks have their regular AP/APC value? why M4/76 and M10 are so special?

And yes, M93 is like most of other WWII era APCR/HVAP, it is very brittle (because of the technology to treat and form Tungsten/Tungsten-carbide during that time), it has very high chance to shatter on the sloped armor. if my memory serves me well, I don't think american did anything to improve the M93,instead they gave up the R&D on APCR and focused on HEAT after war. But they did some improvemet on regular AP M79, they add Ballistic Cap and make APCBC. this part is just my memory, might be wrong.

[Tcao]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
All of your numbers other than those from TOAW are based on what source? Different sources will give you different numbers. A 76mm M1 with HVAP will give you approximately 150% more penetration than a 75mm/L48 making it capable of killing all sorts of cats at 500m (Harry Woodman, 1991, Tank Armament in WW2),(Bovington Tank Museum, 1975, Fire and Movement).

I know calling M4 as "Ronson Lighter" is a little exaggerat
In M4's later varient, a water jacket was installed, it dramatically reduced the chance caught on fire or ammo cook off. but it cannot stop the media and tank crew to say bad word on M4.
On the other hand, Pz IV is easily to caught fire, T-34's ammo cook off very often, but German don't cry in a burning tank and Russian only need another bottle of vodka to forgot the pain.

for HVAP, please see my pervious post, I think it is weird to set M4/76 and M10's AT =16, I understand HVAP might be the reason . But other than these two, none of the rest of WWII tanks' AT value were set at their APCR/HVAP's penetration value.

[Tcao]

I can't find my handbook but I was able to find the formula on one website (I am not allowed to post the link because I have less than 10 posts?)


19.2 Notes On Combat Resolution
(at the end of this chapter)
Anti-Armor Chance to Defeat Armor, per hit:
pq = 100xAnti-Armor/Defensive Armor Chance to Kill
100+ 100%
99…25 ((pq^2)/100)%
24- 0%

This means there is no chance to kill armor unless the firing weapon has at least 25% of the nominal penetration necessary to defeat the target’s armor. Because of the square involved, the chance to kill declines rapidly with decreasing pq (penetration quotient). Defensive armor values are divided by three during penetration checks when attacked by aircraft.

Examples:

Chances to Kill
pq Chance
99 98%
90 81%
80 64%
70 49%
50 25%
40 16%
30 9%
25 6%

19.2.1 Example Calculation

T-34/76 (late) Anti-Armor 7 (kinetic), fires on PzKpfw V Panther armor 13 under normal conditions:
Chance to hit = 33%
pq = 100 x 7 / 13 = 54.
Chance to kill if hit = ((54 ^ 2) / 100)% = 29%
Overall chance to kill = 33% x 29% = 10%.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Chicom Redneck

I can't find my handbook but I was able to find the formula on one website (I am not allowed to post the link because I have less than 10 posts?)


19.2 Notes On Combat Resolution
(at the end of this chapter)
Anti-Armor Chance to Defeat Armor, per hit:
pq = 100xAnti-Armor/Defensive Armor Chance to Kill
100+ 100%
99…25 ((pq^2)/100)%
24- 0%

This means there is no chance to kill armor unless the firing weapon has at least 25% of the nominal penetration necessary to defeat the target’s armor. Because of the square involved, the chance to kill declines rapidly with decreasing pq (penetration quotient). Defensive armor values are divided by three during penetration checks when attacked by aircraft.

Examples:

Chances to Kill
pq Chance
99 98%
90 81%
80 64%
70 49%
50 25%
40 16%
30 9%
25 6%

19.2.1 Example Calculation

T-34/76 (late) Anti-Armor 7 (kinetic), fires on PzKpfw V Panther armor 13 under normal conditions:
Chance to hit = 33%
pq = 100 x 7 / 13 = 54.
Chance to kill if hit = ((54 ^ 2) / 100)% = 29%
Overall chance to kill = 33% x 29% = 10%.

has anybody tested this?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Chicom Redneck

I can't find my handbook but I was able to find the formula on one website (I am not allowed to post the link because I have less than 10 posts?)


19.2 Notes On Combat Resolution
(at the end of this chapter)
Anti-Armor Chance to Defeat Armor, per hit:
pq = 100xAnti-Armor/Defensive Armor Chance to Kill
100+ 100%
99…25 ((pq^2)/100)%
24- 0%

This means there is no chance to kill armor unless the firing weapon has at least 25% of the nominal penetration necessary to defeat the target’s armor. Because of the square involved, the chance to kill declines rapidly with decreasing pq (penetration quotient). Defensive armor values are divided by three during penetration checks when attacked by aircraft.

Examples:

Chances to Kill
pq Chance
99 98%
90 81%
80 64%
70 49%
50 25%
40 16%
30 9%
25 6%

19.2.1 Example Calculation

T-34/76 (late) Anti-Armor 7 (kinetic), fires on PzKpfw V Panther armor 13 under normal conditions:
Chance to hit = 33%
pq = 100 x 7 / 13 = 54.
Chance to kill if hit = ((54 ^ 2) / 100)% = 29%
Overall chance to kill = 33% x 29% = 10%.

has anybody tested this?

Got a Tutorial '43 Sandbox Scenario that works just fine for that; Bn. size units and with all the combined arms stuff to test.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/562 ... 0%2743.rar

Klink, Oberst

[ogar]

governato asked :

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chicom Redneck

I can't find my handbook but I was able to find the formula on one website (I am not allowed to post the link because I have less than 10 posts?)


19.2 Notes On Combat Resolution
(at the end of this chapter)
Anti-Armor Chance to Defeat Armor, per hit:
pq = 100xAnti-Armor/Defensive Armor Chance to Kill
100+ 100%
99…25 ((pq^2)/100)%
24- 0%

{edit: snip}

19.2.1 Example Calculation

T-34/76 (late) Anti-Armor 7 (kinetic), fires on PzKpfw V Panther armor 13 under normal conditions:
Chance to hit = 33%
pq = 100 x 7 / 13 = 54.
Chance to kill if hit = ((54 ^ 2) / 100)% = 29%
Overall chance to kill = 33% x 29% = 10%.


has anybody tested this?

Yes, I've run some tests. Mid-WWII. TOAW 3.4.1.9 and 3.4.0.202 as a control. "Weak AT" weapons are those which have an AT/Target Armor ratio less than 0.25 (25%). In none of the 100+ test runs, did "weak AT" weapons participate in AT combat. So, that end result matches what the documentation claims. (Always interesting when you take apart the sausage to discover what goes on inside the sausage factory.)

[Meyer1]

I think that for WW2, you should not use the HVAP round for the performance of the american 76mm gun, because I understand that round was very rare. Also, the 7.5cm KwK40 also had an APCR/HVAP round(Panzergranate 40) which was also very rare, so you should use the APCBC rounds values for both cases, and in fact both guns were very close in performance.

[Lobster]

If I recall correctly the equipment data in the game does not differentiate between AP and HVAP. There is only one AT value. It would seem the logical thing to do would be to use that value that works best for the most common ammo type used. If a weapon commonly used only AP that ammo type value should be used. If the weapon commonly used HVAP that ammo type value should be used. There is no way I know of where you can use one ammo type in one turn and another ammo type in another turn.


Edit:

After further thought perhaps a different method could be used. If a weapon type used HVAP 10% of the time and AP 90% of the time you could have two different slots for that weapon. One with an AT value for HVAP and one with an AT value for AP. Units with that weapon type would have 10% of the HVAP weapon and 90% of the AP weapon. Maybe that would make everyone happy, don't really know.

[r6kunz]

Greetings,
Has anyone looked at the AT/AP values in the Steel Panther series (Matrix and Shrapnel Games). I took a look them at one point with a view for converting them to TOAW scale. They actually looked pretty good. I have no idea how Norm got his figures; they work pretty well, some outliers, but I wonder if more research has gone into the Steel Panther values?

Incidentally, Curtis Lamay has more or less said no change to the basic .eqp files, and will leave it to individual designers to have scenario.eqp files. BUT he suggested this will be more seamless and user-friendly than the present cut and paste, perhaps it will open in the scenario file like the .bmp scenario photo.

Does anyone have a spread sheet of current (and proposed) values that can be downloaded and edited?

Incidentally, it looks like the TOAWIIIEqpEditor will work with TOAW IV. (I may double post this on the TOAW IV Forum, an important topic and good you guys are working on it.)

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If I recall correctly the equipment data in the game does not differentiate between AP and HVAP. There is only one AT value. It would seem the logical thing to do would be to use that value that works best for the most common ammo type used. If a weapon commonly used only AP that ammo type value should be used. If the weapon commonly used HVAP that ammo type value should be used. There is no way I know of where you can use one ammo type in one turn and another ammo type in another turn.


Edit:

After further thought perhaps a different method could be used. If a weapon type used HVAP 10% of the time and AP 90% of the time you could have two different slots for that weapon. One with an AT value for HVAP and one with an AT value for AP. Units with that weapon type would have 10% of the HVAP weapon and 90% of the AP weapon. Maybe that would make everyone happy, don't really know.

Yes I agree.

Just to reinforce my case with the M4 76mm, from Zaloga "Panther vs Sherman":

[r6kunz]

Thanks for that good reference. I put a lot of stock in Steve's research.

[r6kunz]

On further thought, we may be overthinking this Operational level model. We could a) use AP b) use the HVAP assuming that in a give engagement a crew would use even a few HVAP as appropriate c) use a weighted average AP/HVAP. No perfect answers, but what are your thoughts?