Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How is 'anti-armor' determined?

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> How is 'anti-armor' determined? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/16/2017 3:06:13 PM   
Rafid

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
I'm trying to reevaluate tanks and AT guns and have hit a problem with the anti-armor value: I just don't know what exactly it is! It's my understanding that it's used in the assault phase against devices with an armor value (aka tanks), but that doesn't say how the value should be assigned. The editor manual isn't exactly detailed on this:

quote:

WITPAE-Editor.pdf:
Anti-Armor is the basic combat ability of the device against armoured ground targets.


So I searched the forum, but came up empty. I then looked at the Stock scenarios and DaBabes as both have been designed by people with access to the code, who know how that number is actually used. I made two observations:

1. For tank guns (device type 22 'AFV'), anti-armor is almost always the same as penetration (which is armor penetration in mm at an unspecified distance), exceptions are rare and "doesn't-matter-type-devices" with the possible exception of the M4 Zippo in stock (Pen 80, Anti-Armor 35, but both 35 in DaBabes). This is even more remarkable since penetration values are very different for many devices between stock and DaBabes, but both stick to the pen=anti-armor rule for tanks.
2. For AT guns (device type 19 'Army Gun', range <= 2, non-static and not named Mortar) the situation is chaotic. While penetration and anti-armor seem to be related the ratio is individual for each device. E.g. the British AT guns are at the lower end of the spectrum (2pdr pen: 80 Anti-Armor 46) but the "25mm Mle 38 AT Gun" (used by the Viatnamese Reinforment Divisions) have significantly higher anti-armor (32) than penetration (25). Babes and Stock generally agree on all stats here, but the few guns that Babes added once again have pen=anti-armor.

So:
Is there a rule/guideline how to calculate/assign anti-armor values (of tanks and AT guns)?

Many thanks in advance, Rafid

Post #: 1
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/21/2017 6:32:37 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1611
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
I don't know the answer....

.... but penetration table figures (striking target rolled homogeneous armour perpendicularly at 100m range, or for the Soviets 500m) at 50% success criteria do not correlate with stock device values.

EG M4 Sherman (device #1180), 75mm/L38 M3 rifle - penetration table gives a best figure of 109mm with best ammunition. For the 76mm using an M79 AP round against RHA, tables show 154mm at 100m, & 131mm at 500m. HVAP is significantly better. Device values in game for the Sherman are 120 for each of penetration and anti-armour. Those values are also given to the lend lease M4A2 Sherman (device #805) and the Sherman V (#1091).

EG2 - T34/85 - (device #878), 85 mm ZiS-S-53 rifle - penetration table gives a best figure of 138mm with a BR-365P APCR round, 121mm with HVAP, and 103mm with APCBC. Device values in game are 115 for each of penetration and anti-armour.

EG3 - the UK 17lb a/t gun (device #1029). Using standard APC rounds, the tables give figures of 200mm at 100m, 175mm at 500mm, and using APDS rounds a lot more. Device values are 160 penetration, anti-armour 138.

You can also see see (in the stock scenario 1) the old devices from the vanilla game in the lower numbered slots (e.g. the old M4 Sherman is in #474), and the ' new' stock devices still use those old values.

I also understand that in some mods, the device values have been "tweaked" across the board, so as to influence how combats are resolved.

I suggest, in the absence of accurate knowledge of whatever formulae were used, you find a like weapon and adapt its numbers.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Rafid)
Post #: 2
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/22/2017 11:17:45 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4759
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I don't know the answer....

.... but penetration table figures (striking target rolled homogeneous armour perpendicularly at 100m range, or for the Soviets 500m) at 50% success criteria do not correlate with stock device values.

EG M4 Sherman (device #1180), 75mm/L38 M3 rifle - penetration table gives a best figure of 109mm with best ammunition. For the 76mm using an M79 AP round against RHA, tables show 154mm at 100m, & 131mm at 500m. HVAP is significantly better. Device values in game for the Sherman are 120 for each of penetration and anti-armour. Those values are also given to the lend lease M4A2 Sherman (device #805) and the Sherman V (#1091).

EG2 - T34/85 - (device #878), 85 mm ZiS-S-53 rifle - penetration table gives a best figure of 138mm with a BR-365P APCR round, 121mm with HVAP, and 103mm with APCBC. Device values in game are 115 for each of penetration and anti-armour.

EG3 - the UK 17lb a/t gun (device #1029). Using standard APC rounds, the tables give figures of 200mm at 100m, 175mm at 500mm, and using APDS rounds a lot more. Device values are 160 penetration, anti-armour 138.

You can also see see (in the stock scenario 1) the old devices from the vanilla game in the lower numbered slots (e.g. the old M4 Sherman is in #474), and the ' new' stock devices still use those old values.

I also understand that in some mods, the device values have been "tweaked" across the board, so as to influence how combats are resolved.

I suggest, in the absence of accurate knowledge of whatever formulae were used, you find a like weapon and adapt its numbers.



To add to this, you (anyone) should have good familiarity with the broad field of projectile armor penetration and relative armor quality of targets ...for AFV's or ships, as Ian R has demonstrated above, and then a good familiarity of values of all "like" devices in this game's database.

If you really look deeply into the topic of guns and armor, from the many many divergent sources out there - the first thing that becomes clear is this: there seems to be no ONE legitimate number set. So now you're in the territory of best guessing.

This now brings us to why you also have to be very familiar with all "like" devices in the database...so that as you start to tweak values - your doing it with a broad knowledge of all those devices in the game, which will allow you to keep the relative values you come up:

A) Consistent with the rest of the similar devices in the game, and -

B) ...should keep your values within pre-existing game ranges...so no one device will be out of balance with the range of values the designers ordained for those devices.
This approach allows you to bring specific devices up or down the scale range of similar devices in the game without going out of balance.


That approach is about the best you can do.... IMHO


< Message edited by Big B -- 10/22/2017 11:22:24 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 3
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/23/2017 3:04:45 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1611
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Example 4 - adopting and adapting

I wanted to add the Centurion Mk 1 tank in my "Long Road to Tokyo" mod. Low rate production starts in April 1945, but I set the availability date to after the Churchill VII.

I started with an M26 Pershing.

I changed it to the 17 lb a/t gun values for its main gun, with respect to anti armour value, etc.

Its anti soft is not as good as a Pershing - the 20mm Polsten auto cannon turned out to be a poor idea*, and, broadly speaking, a 90mm gun fires a bigger HE round than a 76mm. [* and was replaced with a 7.92mm Besa LMG].

It has better armour value.

Its load cost is higher, because it weighs roughly 10 tons more.

I am not sure if the developers factored tank speed into the numbers somewhere - if they did it's not obvious - so left that alone.





_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 4
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/23/2017 8:29:25 AM   
Rafid

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
Thanks for the replies!

I noticed the same the same discrepancies as Ian between available penetration data and the values given in the database. That's why I want to do a reevaluation in the first place.

I think I have a decent take on penetration, though if you need to compress this complex subject with its many influences into one number, there's always room for discussion. My problem is, that common sense and the existing databases imply a connection between anti armor and penetration, but nowhere (to my knowledge) is written, how anti armor should be determined. Based on your advice, I think I'll stick to penetration = anti-armor for tanks and something like anti_armor = 0.9 * penetration for AT guns. This is "Consistent with the rest of the similar devices in the game" as Big B put it.

Thanks for the examples Ian.
EG1 is problematic since the Sherman is very common in the Allied OOB. In addition to the overrating in the stock database; DaBabes overshoot in the other direction and lowered the Sherman's penetration all the way to 62 (along with anti-armor).
EG2 is less worrisome since the penetration value is within the region of scatter you get for penetration data depending on source. But it brings up the interesting subject which ammunition should be considered. APCR/HVAP was in short supply even in Europe where the Germans fielded credible armor; I doubt any made it to the pacific theater. So unless one does a late 45 downfall like scenario I would ignore it. You (Ian) also mention Russian APCBC - I though the Russians didn't use armor piercing caps, hence shouldn't that be APBC?
EG3: Yeah the 17pdr is slightly underrated, but it's already in the ‘penetrates everything’ class, so it doesn’t matter unless you invent some Japanese fantasy tanks first.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 5
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/24/2017 3:21:43 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1611
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

... it doesn’t matter unless you invent some Japanese fantasy tanks first


My mod is built from Andy Mac's nasty nasty iron man, with IJA Mk 3 medium uber-tanks, and runs to 1948, hence the need for things like the Centurion Interestingly, ironman nasty uses the DaBabes values for allied tanks, but not the Japanese.

Re the soviet ammo - I have seen it stated that the Soviets did not produce (for the 85mm) a true APCBC round until the 1950s, but then again what they called an APBC round may have been a rudimentary double capped projectile. Some authors (Kenneth Macksey) refer to an APCBC round, others such as Zaloga only to APCR (which he calls HVAP) and standard APHE.

What can be said for sure is that a fully loaded T34 might have 5 or 6 exotic rounds in the racks, but they didn't really need them in Manchuria anyway.



< Message edited by Ian R -- 10/24/2017 3:22:38 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Rafid)
Post #: 6
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/24/2017 8:19:10 AM   
Rafid

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline
quote:

Interestingly, ironman nasty uses the DaBabes values for allied tanks, but not the Japanese.


It’s worse: There are no DaBabes values for Japanese tanks. Only the Allied tanks were reevaluated (aka seriously downgraded); the Japanese just kept their (mostly inflated) values. As a result DaBabes is very lopsided in favour of the Japs concerning tanks. This is another reason I want to go through all of them again.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 7
RE: How is 'anti-armor' determined? - 10/24/2017 11:10:10 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1611
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Hence the IJA Medium Mk 3 uber tank. The allies seem to have been reduced 45% across the board.

I restored the allied (and Soviet) MBTs to stock in my mod. And organsied some units to upgrade to the IS-III combat evaluation units.

I can't speak to the DaBabes modifications. Perhaps one of the mod designers could tell us what they were trying to simulate.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Rafid)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> How is 'anti-armor' determined? 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

0.110