Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been trying to get a better exact number to use for the penetration value of a PIAT for Commonwealth PIAT WTs, when I read (and then re-read) the values for the Panzerfaust: 22!

Let me make sure I'm getting this straight (since I haven't done SATW vs. armour combat in this system yet):

Any German squad (since all are assumed to have Panzerfausts) gets within 2 hexes (3 hexes in 1945) of a Allied tank, makes a proficiency check (modified by applicable modifiers) and then checks firepower against the appropriate armour.

So, a first line German squad, two hexes away from a stationary enemy tank, has a 50% chance of hitting that tank (morale 10, -3 proficiency, -2 range), and since all of the Allied tanks have armour less than 10, the only way that they don't die is if the German player rolls a 10 on the firepower check.

Do I have that right? Unsuppressed German first line squads have a 45% chance of killing any (stationary) Allied tank within 2 hexes, and a 54% at one hex?

Second line squads have a 36% chance of killing a tank at 2 hexes, and 45% at 1 hex.

I haven't done a lot of infantry AT weapons vs. tank shooting in many tactical tactical games, but that seems at first glance to be a bit high.

That is the intended effect, correct? I'm not forgetting a modifier or a factor in the equation?

For reference, the penetration of a Panzerfaust hitting Rolled Homogenous Armour (RHA) at 90 degrees is 200mm. The penetration of a Bazooka hitting RHA is 90-100mm at 90 degrees.

Giving the Panzerfaust a value of 22 and the Bazooka a value of 11 yields proportionally correct values (9.09 to 1 ratio of penetration (in mm) to AT firepower), so these values seem internally consistent. All I'm questioning, and this isn't a "fix it now!" question, it's a "what's your rationale?" question, is whether these high kill probabilities are intended.

If these numbers are correct, the PIAT's penetration firepower should correctly be 10. (90mm field effective penetration - design intent was 100mm but it did not consistently achieve that).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I should also quote this post, which I found on another forum, which seemed very informative:

This is a link to the original post in context, for reference.

Quote:
Quote:
View Postsupertsar, on Sat 18 Aug 2007 1323, said:
Most sources for bazooka and PIAT penetration give both weapons either the same penetration or credit the bazooka with slightly more. For example Ian Hoggs Infantry Weapons of WWII lists bazooka penetration at 80mm, PIAT at 75mm (no indication of how tests were conducted or what source he used); Tank Charts rules (Stokes and I think Lorrin Bird?) both listed at 110mm; etc...
What befuddles me is that the diameter of the bazooka round was 60mm while the PIAT is approximately 88mm, the PIAT being almost 50% bigger! I assume there was a similar increase in the volume of the explosive as well.
Was the difference due to the type of explosive used? Or because the explosive and cones were of different shape? Did the bazookas copper liner as opposed to the PIATs non-copper (looks like aluminum) help that much? Was the standoff distance on the PIAT incorrect? Fuze problems (either improper ignition or because it sits in the front center of the PIAT somehow inhibiting the jet formation)?
Or was it just inconsistant testing methods?



I have access to some test data for the various marks of PIAT Bombs. An initial experimental version of the PIAT bomb was capable of perforating 115mm of RHA at 0-degrees. These test bombs were larger diameter than the final production model. The experimental model had a diameter of 3.5-inches. One of the design constraints for the production model required the bomb to be lighter than the experimental version. The final bomb design had a diameter of 3.25-inches. That’s the projectile casing diameter, not the cone diameter. Just an aside, but the striking velocity of the 3.5" test bombs was recorded to be ~250-fps at a range of 30-yards. The 2.36-inch bazooka (M6A3 rocket) muzzle velocity was about 265-fps.

The actual Production\service QA\QC testing criteria\requirements for the PIAT bomb was set at 100mm of RHA at 0-degrees. However, at some point into production, service rounds were found to be incapable of achieving the design requirement of penetrating 100mm of RHA @ 0-degrees. The production round QA\QC testing criteria was than lowered to 91mm @ 0-degrees. This lower penetration capability (91mm@0-deg) was later found to be a function of both production quality issues as well as the fuze design. The cone was becoming detached from the explosive filler during production; and the spit back tube\flash back tube was becoming detached during firing (that’s the cordtex train extending from the nose fuze of the PIAT bomb to the booster charge at the base of the cone).

Quote:
View Postsupertsar, on Sat 18 Aug 2007 1323, said:
"What befuddles me is that the diameter of the bazooka round was 60mm while the PIAT is approximately 88mm, the PIAT being almost 50% bigger! I assume there was a similar increase in the volume of the explosive as well.

Was the difference due to the type of explosive used? Or because the explosive and cones were of different shape? Did the bazookas copper liner as opposed to the PIATs non-copper (looks like aluminum) help that much? Was the standoff distance on the PIAT incorrect? Fuze problems (either improper ignition or because it sits in the front center of the PIAT somehow inhibiting the jet formation)?"



The explosive filler was part of the issue. Explosive type, confinement, height of the explosive behind the cone, etc, all contribute to penetration capability. The most notable contrast being the types of explosive filler used in Bazooka rockets relative to the MkI and MkII PIAT Bomb. The explosive filler used in the Bazooka’s M6A1 through M6A3 rockets was Pentolite. That’s a PETN\TNT 50\50 mix. The explosive filler used in the initial marks of the PIAT bomb was Nobles No.808 (MkI and MkII bomb filler). Nobles-808 consisted of a Nitroglycerine plastic explosive. Nobles-808 was acknowledged by the designers as not being the ideal choice of high explosive for the PIAT bomb, but shortages of more suitable explosive materials was steering the design at this stage. If one were to hold all else constant, a hollow charge using a Pentolite filler will perforate about 30% more steel than the same hollow charge projectile using a straight TNT filler.

In autumn of 1943 a MkIII PIAT Bomb design was being kicked around. The MkIII Bomb employed a more potent high explosive filler consisting of 13-oz of RDX\TNT 50\50. The more potent RDX\TNT filler resulted in service penetration capability being bumped back up to 100mm of RHA @ 0-degrees. This in spite of the weight of the filler being reduced from that of the MkI and MkII bombs.

There are other contrasts between the PIAT Bomb and Bazooka Rocket designs that would result in contrasts in penetration efficiency. While the Bazooka’s M6A1 and M6A2 rockets initially used mild steel cones, sometime after July 1943, the M6A3 rocket was introduced. The M6A3 used a copper cone. Conversely, all Marks of the PIAT bomb used mild steel cones. Again, if one were to hold all else constant, a copper cone will out-perforate a mild steel cone by about 25% to 40% -- depending upon the cone angle.

The cone angle is also very different between the Bazooka’s M6A1 to M6A3 rockets relative to that of the PIAT Bomb. The M6A1 to A3 used about a 42 to 45-degree cone angle. All production Marks of the PIAT Bomb used an 80-degree cone angle. The narrow cone angle utilized in the M6A1-A3 rockets would result in greater perforation than the 80-degree cone angle employed on the PIAT Bomb. The British had been experimenting with a narrower cone angle for an improved PIAT Bomb toward the end of the war. The experimental bomb used a 60-degree cone angle. Penetration of the experimental 60-deg cone was found to be ~100mm of RHA at 30-degrees. That’s about a 15% increase in perforation capability over the 80-degree cone. An initial manufacturing order was placed for this new Bomb, but the war ended before it went into production.

Lastly, there is a contrast in stand-off between the PIAT Bomb and 2.36" Bazooka rocket. The PIAT stand-off works out to be about 1.4 to 1.5 cone diameters (CD). The M6A1 to A3 rocket stand-off works out to be about 1.9 to 2 cone diameters. This is static stand-off and therefore does not include any crush up. Again, if one were to hold all else constant, a stand-off distance of 2CDs would result in greater perforation over the same cone with a stand-off of only 1.5CDs.

Best Regards
JD
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, those are intended and correct. The PF was deadly.

The number you have for the PIAT also sounds about right.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim Krohn wrote:
Yes, those are intended and correct. The PF was deadly.

The number you have for the PIAT also sounds about right.


Thank you for the quick answer. I knew that they were deadly, but since they have effectively unlimited ammunition within the restrictions of your system, I wanted to be sure those were the intended numbers (since there have been a few minor typos elsewhere and the value is only really given once in the rulebook and once on the reference card (I think)).

Since they are intended, that's how I shall play them, and I shall use 10 for the PIAT.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dean Naval Warfare Simulations / Tactical Warfare Simulations (Land/Air Combat)
United States
flag msg tools
Is there plans to model the PanzerShreck?

Also, any plans to add the German Pak 75mm ATG?

The 88mm was a damn good gun, but hard to move around and required a reasonable amount of crew to operate efficiently. For static defenses it was excellent, but not so much for a mobile defense and the 88mm was often easier to spot and call down indirect fire or air support on the crew.

The Pak75 was very effective, harder to spot due to a smaller profile, and easier for a crew to move about.

Just my few cents..

All in all, very nice looking game.

Thanks.
Christopher Dean
NWS Online Gaming Store
Director of Operations
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tsui
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kozure wrote:
I haven't done a lot of infantry AT weapons vs. tank shooting in many tactical tactical games, but that seems at first glance to be a bit high.


As Jim said, that's about right.

In Advanced Squad Leader, the PF is also an inherent weapon of the squad. Assuming you hit the target, a successful To Kill requires cross-referencing weapon against range to get a To Kill number, rolling 2D6, and applying appropriate modifiers (armor, in motion, etc.). A kill results if the modified dice roll is less than the To Kill number.

At a range of one hex, the PF To Kill number, IIRC, was something like 25+, and the Sherman's frontal armor was something like +10. The only way you could not kill the Sherman was to roll an unmodified 12 (the PF was a dud)!!

In ASL, when playing against late-war Germans, you were always worried about Allied armor getting nailed by a hidden/concealed German squad. You needed to have a squad or two move with the tank to flush Jerry out.

Dave
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Is there plans to model the PanzerShreck?

Also, any plans to add the German Pak 75mm ATG?


Yes to both.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dean Naval Warfare Simulations / Tactical Warfare Simulations (Land/Air Combat)
United States
flag msg tools
Jim Krohn wrote:
Quote:
Is there plans to model the PanzerShreck?

Also, any plans to add the German Pak 75mm ATG?


Yes to both.


Excellent.. now how about M3 and SDKFZ HTs? They would be useful for their MG support, towing the ATGs, and mobility of the infantry.

I hope you plan on cranking out a lot of expansions.. the potential of this game system is almost endless. The British and Canadians would make for one expansion all by itself. How about an African campaign edition?

I think you need to get busy! Thanks for the replies!

Thanks.
Christopher Dean
NWS Online Gaming Store
Director of Operations
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Shaw
United States
Kennesaw
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, Jim is working on the next two expansions: Ghost Division and Old Breed, in that order; right Jim? I mean when you're not here hanging with the 'little people'?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Up Front fan, Cats were once worshipped as gods and they haven't forgotten this, Combat Commander series fan, The Raven King (game publisher) ... that's me!, Fields of Fire fan
badge
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sokadr wrote:
Well, Jim is working on the next two expansions: Ghost Division and Old Breed, in that order; right Jim? I mean when you're not here hanging with the 'little people'?


He's got how many he could do? Besides Ghost Division and Old Breed, he could line up at least a Med/North Africa one, Commonwealth 44-45, early Blitz against Poland/France as well. Five more games in the series? We'd have to chain him to his desk for 18 months at least to get all that BoB goodness (but it'd be worth it devil ).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cheque6 wrote:
Kozure wrote:
I haven't done a lot of infantry AT weapons vs. tank shooting in many tactical tactical games, but that seems at first glance to be a bit high.


As Jim said, that's about right.

In Advanced Squad Leader, the PF is also an inherent weapon of the squad. Assuming you hit the target, a successful To Kill requires cross-referencing weapon against range to get a To Kill number, rolling 2D6, and applying appropriate modifiers (armor, in motion, etc.). A kill results if the modified dice roll is less than the To Kill number.

At a range of one hex, the PF To Kill number, IIRC, was something like 25+, and the Sherman's frontal armor was something like +10. The only way you could not kill the Sherman was to roll an unmodified 12 (the PF was a dud)!!

In ASL, when playing against late-war Germans, you were always worried about Allied armor getting nailed by a hidden/concealed German squad. You needed to have a squad or two move with the tank to flush Jerry out.

Dave


Heh, I've played with Bazookas and PIATs in ASL but haven't played any scenarios with Panzerfausts yet (I haven't played much of ASL but I used to play SL a lot). I'm still (re)learning the system after a long absence and haven't played German infantry vs. Allied armour in 1942+, Now I know.

IIRC there's a potential for "running out of ammo" for PFs in ASL, somehow, depending on the die roll?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tsui
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kozure wrote:

Heh, I've played with Bazookas and PIATs in ASL but haven't played any scenarios with Panzerfausts yet (I haven't played much of ASL but I used to play SL a lot). I'm still (re)learning the system after a long absence and haven't played German infantry vs. Allied armour in 1942+, Now I know.

IIRC there's a potential for "running out of ammo" for PFs in ASL, somehow, depending on the die roll?


Off the top of my head, you had to roll to see if you could use a PF. Failure of the roll did not mean you ran out of PF, just that you couldn't use it that firing phase. The designer notes justified this saying this meant the PF firer couldn't get into a good firing position, or had to work up the nerve to approach the target, etc.

Dave
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Shaw
United States
Kennesaw
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

"We'd have to chain him to his desk for 18 months at least to get all that BoB goodness (but it'd be worth it )."

I'm with you but I'm also trying to figure out what I'm going to tell my lawyer. cool
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Stewart
United States
Bowie
20715
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
In autumn of 1943 a MkIII PIAT Bomb design was being kicked around.
Good way to lose a leg.....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Tamburo
United States
Justice
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know Jim, a lot of the German AT values seem pretty overstated, to the point where their tanks are like Death Stars. Remember that a great many German tanks were killed by Allied tanks too.

Also, Panzerfausts were single shot weapons and not all squads had them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I don't know Jim, a lot of the German AT values seem pretty overstated, to the point where their tanks are like Death Stars. Remember that a great many German tanks were killed by Allied tanks too.


I stand by the numbers. I think they are accurate.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.