Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/9/2017 5:57:01 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
How are Flak and arty guns handled vs. armor ? Lets say 2 Allied tank brigades attack an inf. regiment (not many AT weapons) which has a 15cm howitzer and 8cm AA units in the same hex.

We can assume these guns are in the "rear", the arty can fire indirectly but only with HE which can ofc disable light tanks. Guess there is no direct fire from these guns in the rear on the tanks. But if tank break thorugh the first infantry line then the AA and howitzers should fire directly at the tanks ? Or will arty/aa overrun without much chance to fire?

IN TOAW this is called active and passive defenders, the AA, ART and eg. lorries would be passive...of course it is possible some of these are stationed in the first and 2nd lines of defense directly so can fire already at the tanks before any would break the inf lines or even prevent a crumblingof the line and the attack is beaten off...
Post #: 1
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/9/2017 6:45:07 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8780
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
In my game where my tanks have often routed the Japanese, artillery units suffer heavy vehicle losses but somehow tow their guns to safety in the next hex. I don't think they do direct fire because my tank losses are not heavy.

I have not suffered tank losses against lone AA units so I think they do not fire at tanks with the possible exception of DP guns. The editor shows anti-armour and anti-soft values for these weapons but I think that is to show what a rare direct shell hit might cause. I don't know enough about the model to know how it handles possible near misses (which might flip over a tank IRL).

There isn't anything you can do about how the combat is handled so I don't worry about it.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 2
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/9/2017 7:08:20 PM   
Pentakomo

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 11/13/2014
Status: offline
Think its just firing of all guns which can penetrate armor then calculate how many AFV disabled or even destroyed.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 3
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/9/2017 7:16:30 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
It was suggested by IJ AAR experts to get as much 15cm arty and eg. 10cm AA to counter Allied tanks, however the question is, how many of these get direct fire opportunities at the armor....and that this method would not put these guns at risk to be overrun without them contributing much to the defense (vs. tanks)

(in reply to Pentakomo)
Post #: 4
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/9/2017 8:52:26 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2144
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
I would doubt pure AA guns are used to fire against any ground target. I think the code handles them as just passive device with no firepower (like radar, or searchlight). Support squads are used as normal in passive defence counting as 1/10 AV each.
As to the DP (Dual Purpose) guns, they are used as both AA and normal guns - but they are used as indirect fire devices if their ground range is 3+ (like mortars, etc. And as direct fire devices if their range is <3.

It all depends on how the device is defined in the editor...

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 5
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 6:17:54 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2686
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
They do shoot at the other side.

This is from my reference pile (AAR stuff):

--------------------------------------------


An interesting combat outcome was observed today NE of Magwe:

Ground combat at 58,46
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 36103 troops, 377 guns, 126 vehicles, Assault Value = 1657
Defending force 391 troops, 36 guns, 33 vehicles, Assault Value = 1
Japanese adjusted assault: 618
Allied adjusted defense: 1
Japanese assault odds: 618 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-), supply(-)
Attacker: disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
297 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 25 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 39 (39 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 19 (19 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
1st RTA Division
48th Division
56th/A Division
40th Brigade
38th Division
56th/B Division
15th Army
9th RF Gun Battalion

Defending units:
14th Indian Light AA Regiment

Well that explains the massacre of the Allied shock attack in Magwe. It is clear, that AA guns do fire at ground targets, and, moreover, are potent in that role. This might cause me to rethink Japanese AA units disposition and spread some of them across more valuable island bases.

--------------------------------------------------



(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 6
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 7:34:38 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8780
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Yes, they do fire at LCUs when they are about to be overwhelmed but generally not. Note the attributed AV of 1 - all units that have no AV devices get a minimum AV of 1. I think the intention was to prevent "divide by 0" problems, but in good terrain and with a river crossing that one AV gives them the opportunity to shoot at the assaulting units with good effect.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 7
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 12:28:26 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 391
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
Hello.

AV has nothing to do with firepower. Firepower has nothing to do with AV. Firepower is the concatenation of the anti-soft numeric for specific devices. Assault value is a nose count of eligible devices, informed by adjustments based on ... the usual stuff ...

AAA weapons with appropriate device characteristics can, and do, contribute their anti-soft firepower, primarily in the defensive fire phase, in order to cause destruction, disablement, disruption and fatigue, before the adjusted assault calculations are made.

Matt


< Message edited by US87891 -- 1/10/2017 12:31:15 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 8
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 3:00:37 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8780
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Hello.

AV has nothing to do with firepower. Firepower has nothing to do with AV. Firepower is the concatenation of the anti-soft numeric for specific devices. Assault value is a nose count of eligible devices, informed by adjustments based on ... the usual stuff ...

AAA weapons with appropriate device characteristics can, and do, contribute their anti-soft firepower, primarily in the defensive fire phase, in order to cause destruction, disablement, disruption and fatigue, before the adjusted assault calculations are made.

Matt


My point was that if the unit was attributed with 0 AV, I don't think they would fire at all at LCUs. Because it has 1 AV, it does fire briefly and the appropriate anti-soft/anti-hard/effect values apply.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 9
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 3:01:37 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9170
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Look at the editor. Virtually every squad and device has an anti armor value from a low of one up to some high numbers for large AA guns. The worst infantry squads start at about 5 and even 30 cal MGs even have an anti armor value. All AA and artillery have an anti armor value-some of them quite decent. The rest depends on the armor values of the attacking armor. So I would expect all units and devices have a potential to cause armor casualties. With low values having virtually no effect on decent armor.

Run a test or two. Try with a pure Japanese tank unit attacking a Commonwealth heavy AA unit. That is pretty much a pure tank vs AA gun affair.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 10
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 5:38:42 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 806
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
My point was that if the unit was attributed with 0 AV, I don't think they would fire at all at LCUs.

All ART units in the game have zero AV. Your point cannot stand

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 11
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 9:09:03 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8780
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
My point was that if the unit was attributed with 0 AV, I don't think they would fire at all at LCUs.

All ART units in the game have zero AV. Your point cannot stand

Get them into combat with an infantry unit attacking them and the AI will assign an AV of 1, as it did in the AA unit combat shown in Lokasenna's post 6 of this thread.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 12
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/10/2017 11:17:33 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1119
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
My point was that if the unit was attributed with 0 AV, I don't think they would fire at all at LCUs.

All ART units in the game have zero AV. Your point cannot stand

Get them into combat with an infantry unit attacking them and the AI will assign an AV of 1, as it did in the AA unit combat shown in Lokasenna's post 6 of this thread.


But that is an AV value, not a firepower number. Note the destroyed and disabled devices from that post, they came from the firepower of the AA unit.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 13
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 12:47:44 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 7799
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Read what Matt wrote again, he was very explicit and he sits at the elbow of ...

It wasn't new info, pretty sure I remember very similar statement made sometime ago.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 14
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 3:04:02 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8780
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
No one seems to notice my salient point - if there is no AV assigned before combat - the unit does not fire. Because it has a minimal amount of AV assigned, it gets to fire and all that other stuff is applied. I am quite aware that firepower is calculated on all those other factors. BUT IF THE UNIT DOES NOT FIIRE THEN THOSE OTHER FACTORS WOULD NOT MATTER! Thus the importance of having 1 AV assigned by the AI at the start of combat!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 15
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 10:41:05 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Art works vs. armor (tested):


Ground combat at 56,56 (near Moulmein)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4791 troops, 74 guns, 444 vehicles, Assault Value = 370

Defending force 8077 troops, 154 guns, 162 vehicles, Assault Value = 166

Allied adjusted assault: 93

Japanese adjusted defense: 309

Allied assault odds: 1 to 3

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
183 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 44 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 27 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)
Vehicles lost 11 (2 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
74 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 6 (6 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 42 (4 destroyed, 38 disabled)

Assaulting units:
50th Tank Brigade
16th Light Cavalry Regiment
43rd Cavalry Regiment
254th Armoured Brigade
75th IAC Regiment
2nd Burma Brigade
27th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
23rd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment

Defending units:
2nd RTA Division
7th JAAF Base Force
55th Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion
5th Field Artillery Regiment
15th JAAF Base Force


The Allied units are not the best, but the Thai unit has not much vs. armor, only 50mm mountain guns, these should be useless vs. med. tanks.
So I the arty did most of the anti-armor combat. Question is if indirect or direct fire (or both) or with HE or HEAT shells. We have no way of knowing this game is missing a combat report file option like TOAW has (which even shows angles of armor and size of target modifications of the combat routine).

2 of the arty untis gained exp while the others stayed the same (1 point plus for one of the base forces only!). Also it seems not a single Allied med tank (Lee, Valentine) was destryoed only small disabled, but the Stuarts and Marmon ACs sufferedlots of disabled but also not many destroyed. Seems AT fire needs a bit more deadlyness (we can assume that Stuarts etc. would have more destroyed if they press the attack - will try a SA and AA units next)

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 16
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 10:57:35 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
As you can see the Stuart unit did not suffer a single destroyed also all the Allied untis still have high morale even if every attack failed - I let them attack 4 times and rested a bit I added in between the Gurka brig and 2 mtn gun units to see if some more inf and guns would perhaps change the outcome (still not enough to win the combat vs. weak thai and support units, note the baseforces have 12 twin 13,2 MG but no one knows how much they contributed vs. light armor.)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 17
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 10:59:12 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Only the AC units suffered destroyed




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 18
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 3:26:46 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8554
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
The units might have suffered a lot of bogged vehicles due to their total lack of preparation for the objective.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 19
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 3:39:23 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1447
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Which objective ? This is a jungle road (place of battle) no base hex. But interesting, that you say lacking prep can lead to disabled devices ?

Btw, I swapped out the arty for 3 AA units (16x88, 30x75) and now 2-3 medium tanks are also destroyed (not only disabled)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 1/11/2017 3:42:29 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 20
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 4:16:11 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8554
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I am sorry, I thought that was at Moulmein - not in the jungle.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 21
RE: AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? - 1/11/2017 4:49:47 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8780
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Only the AC units suffered destroyed




IRL the .50 cal MG could penetrate the armour on an armoured car. Not sure if that is modeled in the game. I will check the editor value for Marmon-Herrington armour vs the anti-hard rating of the MG.

EDIT: Yup, the Anti-Armour rating of the 0.50 inch M2HB MG is 25. The Armour of the M-H AC is 12.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 1/11/2017 4:55:08 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AA and ART vs. armor: Clarification...? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.201