View Full Version : LVT armour values
October 18th, 2006, 08:18 PM
I have recently been playing the Io Jima senario as PBEM and thought the American amphibious vehicles looked a little heavily armoured here is what I found comparing information from the internet with in-game values. There are two versions of each model of LVT, armoured vehicles with a "(A)" designation and unarmoured. Unarmoured vehicles are made of 10-14 gauge steel which is 2 mm or less in thickness. However in game these vehicles get an armour value of 1 all round, two problems here I think, If this was 2mm or armour perhaps the rating of 1 might be justified, However it is not armour just "mild" steel so perhaps a value of 0 would be more appropriate for these vehicles? Battle reports support a value of 0 for these vehicles, from
"Since the LVT1 was unarmored, it was most useful as a ship-to-shore cargo ferry"
"The vehicle was not armoured and its steel hull offered virtually no protection"
Also the fact that the cargo had to climb over the sides to get in and out would discourage battlefield tactical use.
In Marines OOB affects units 016, 111, 300 and 301
The armoured versions had this armour disposition I am not sure if the armour is applique or the vehicles were built from it. From
cab front 1.3mm, cab rear .64mm, hull front .64mm, sides .64mm I would think that this would correspond to armour values of 1 all round but the vehicle actually has armour value of 2 in game. Note the rear or rear door depending on version is unarmoured so all vehicles should have a rear armour value of 0
In Marines OOB affects units 017, 019, 021, 022, 078, 113, 114 and 206
The unarmoured version carries 24 troops the armoured version carries 18 as it weighs more. The armoured vehicles have been given a carrying capacity of 24 should be 18.
LVT(A) 1, units 021 and 078 has a turret front of 4 and 5 should I think be 4.
also of interest see
October 21st, 2006, 01:04 PM
steel so perhaps a value of 0 would be more appropriate for these vehicles?
The "un-armoured" versions are given a 1 because they are sunk too easily in the game if they are given zero. The 1 rating is a compromise to playability. The "armoured" versions are given a 2. That's a design decision based on playability as well.
October 21st, 2006, 07:08 PM
OK fair enough, I would just provide this quote from
"The LVT were used for logistic support at Guadalcanal, but their first real test was in the assault on Tarawa. Of 125 vehicles used, only 35 remained operational by the end of the day."
suggesting that unarmoured versions were in fact pretty easy to 'sink', and
"As a result of Tarawa experience, standardized armor kits were provided for the LVTs employed in contested landings"
showing that the unarmoured versions were relegated to cargo carrying because of this,
Lastly dont forget the armoured versions still should have there rear armour changed from 2 to 1 ie the back door is unarmoured and there carrying capacity dropped from 24 to 18.
best regards Chuck
October 22nd, 2006, 04:46 PM
But the Tarawa ops lasted all day long while with 0 armour you'd end up with 35 out of 125 over the course of an hour's action http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
October 22nd, 2006, 10:29 PM
Well I guess that giving the unarmoured versions 0 armour does make them too easy to sink. But of course the downside of this is that once on the beach they can no longer be sunk but now present the enemy with a quite formidable fighting vehicle which was in fact not the case. In reality they would (and by all accounts were) pretty easily shot to pieces.
Personally I would like to see them 0 to ensure they are used "correctly" ie as swimming trucks requiring the enemy to be thoroghly suppressed or smoked before they are employed. After all this is what the equivelent DUKW vehicle has to do. And of course there is always the armoured version for contested landings.
Im not so sure I understand how playability is enhaced by doubling the armour value of the armoured versions. I would have thought the "correct" front and side values of 1 and rear 0 would play fine.
The same reasoning applies to the remaining landing craft LCVT and LCM and probably LCP LCA LCS also. these vehicle all have 2 or beter Armour but seem to be unarmoured or have the standard .64 "armour" of mild steel. From
Only the control station is armoured (.64 cm) in LCM. So maybe armour value of 1 rather than 2 is appropriate for LCM?
has quarter inch (.64cm) armour so should be 1 not 2?
Describes LCA as being made of wood in game they are armour value 4 seems high to me even if they were made of steel.
The "correct" values for these LCM, LCVT, LCA would encourage them to be used as transports leaving the beach once unloaded rather than hang around as well armoured fire support as most players use them. After all who would want a bunch of sailors blasting away with 50 cals behind you when your about to go over the top.
Best Regards Chuck.
October 24th, 2006, 12:08 AM
Change all the values to what you belive to be correct then play out a beach assault and let me know how it works out for you.
November 12th, 2006, 02:02 AM
I have done some tests.
I let the AI play both sides of the 'Omaha Beach' senario (009)
First with the SPCAMO armour for the LVTs etc
The Result for SPCAMO armour values
score USA 546 Germany 6450
The Result for "correct" armour values of 1 all round for all amphibious vehicle types.
score USA 815 Germany 6279
So both senarios played out the same with the current game and the "correct" values
I tried to do the same for 'IwO jimi: first ashore' senario (063)
BUt only 3 LCP and 1 lcm survived with SPCAMO armour values so no point testing AI vs AI with the "correct" armour values.
So I am currently playing 'IwO jimi: first ashore' as the Marines as a PBEM. Im currently up to turn 18, and havnt noticed any problems with using 1 and 0 rear armour instead of 2 armour values for the LVTs etc. theve been shot at by mortars AA and infantry and seem to survive just fine. when the larger bunker guns fire the have such high penetration values that 1 or 2 armour would make little difference. I have managed to get past the beaches but have been a bit to careless and lost a lot of equipment. The game looks to be a draw. Congratulations to the designers this and tarawa are both excellent senarios.
I then tried 'stark and bitter hours' senario. (049)
The Result for SPCAMO armour values
LVT________________34 (13 imobilised)
with "correct" values
So the unarmoured LVT suffered severly from having there armour removed mainly due to Mortar fire.
I then played the AI myself,
Score of 3142 v 577 my way.
Unlike the AI I unloaded all the mortars on the coral fringe and used them to smoke out the beach this allowed me to land all the troops in -1 depth water who could then puff more smoke if required and the LVTs could then retire I did leave some lying around though and these did get sunk but they wouldnt have if I hadnt been so lazy and had moved them out of the way. Obviously the AI has trouble guessing where to fire his mortar rounds. I will now play this one PBEM and see how I go against a human opponent. If Im still here that is http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Generally re the unarmoured LVTs, it still takes a few hits to kill/sink one.
In the real tarawa there was massive prebombardment 30000 tonne I believe, apparently the whole atol was on fire from end to end and covered in smoke this is probably why the unarmoured Amtracks got to the shore.
So I would say that giving the 2 armour value LVTs ect the 1 values and 0 at the rear makes little difference. I certainly couldnt locate what aspect of playability was enhanced by doubling the armour value of these vehicles.
I havnt tested this but for the unarmoured variety a value of 0 probably does make them to easy too sink but giving them 1 then results in overperformance once landed. I think the a better solution would be that indirect fire when landing in water is greatly reduced in effect, just a thought.
I think an argument can be made for the larger LCM to have the 1 values they would be hard to sink as they probably have a bilge pump and are quite large. Note that in British usage LCMs had "extra" bullet proof matresses installed.
LCI's also warrent a higher armour value again because of their bulk.
Best regards Chuck
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.