Artillery

[DRG]

dwmalesevich said:
Artillery in direct fire mode is much different than artillery in in-direct fire mode. So far the most effective AT weapons that I have seen are the 81mm Mortars which is BS. I've had more vehicles killed by 81 mortars than by direct fire AT weapons. I am a retired US Army Armored Platoon Sergeant who was also a Master Gunner for 16 years of my 21 years Active duty. I would also like to have a loader that can fire his machine gun and load the main gun at the same time. And any gunner who constantly fired his coax at the same time as the main gun would no longer be a gunner.

SFC Dave Malesevich
USA-Ret 19K4HA7

When I get comments like this I really wonder if everyone's playing the same game we playtested but when we do get reports like this the first thing we like to do is go back and retest the game based on the information we are given.

Since I have NO idea what side you are playing but will assume it's the US side I set up a desert advance by the Germans against a mixed US infantry , mortar and AT gun formation. Very heavy on the mortars because you reported them to be the primary tank killers and with a back up of AT guns. Admittedly this was in the desert in 1942 and the 37mm AT gun isn't the best but if the mortars do the job you say they do I should leave a trail of destruction with them.

After ending the first turn I had plenty of targets to fire at but I choose two armoured cars that had advanced further than the rest and were between 650 and 750 yards from my mortars with good visibility and a clear LOS. I started firing at them in an attempt to see how many shots it would take to knock them both out. These were "double" mortars so for every three shots showing available to a unit 6 rounds went towards the two targets.

14 individual mortar units were fired at those two armoured cars 14x3x2= 84 rounds went downrange towards those targets. I recorded 15 hits ( 17% ) with the net result of one destroyed AC and one disabled so I had one kill and one disablement from 2.4 % of the 84 shots fired.

It took only five shots from 800 yards to finish off the disabled AC with a 37mm AT gun.

Now..... maybe a 17% to-hit ratio for direct fire mortars against a vehicle at 750 yards in perfect visibility is too much ( any mortarmen out there ??? ) but I expended a lot of assets at the enemy for very little return using Mortars as AT guns. I reran the save game only this time I fired the 37 mm AT guns that were backing up the mortars at the two armoured cars. I had killed both AC's after firing a grand total of 7 shots ( that's 7 shots to kill two AC's not 7 per AC ) so I would say that it's "BS" that mortars are better AT guns than AT guns.

However, if you would like to provide us with a save game that demonstrates your contention we will be GLAD to look into it. We already know something is a bit off with the arty code and we think we may be on track to isolating it so if you can provide a save or better still a test sceanrio that proves your theory you will be helping everyone out. However the test *I* ran seems to prove otherwise

Don

UNLESS you were comparing indirect mortar fire to direct AT gun fire??? It's not clear from your report just which mode the mortars are the best "tank killers"

[JaM]

Sorry, i dont have a save from this. As soon as i will be back home i will make another one and will post it.

[DRG]

OK... test number two

one company of Shermans being bombarded on the opening turn by ten sections of German 81 MM mortars and 1 company of MkIVf's being bombarded by 10 sections of US mortars.

Net result...... 7 Shermans retreating from ground zero with no losses and on the German side three PzIV's retreating. One disabled, one destroyed

160 mortar rounds expended by the US side and the same for the Germans. 10 sections each with two mortars and each tube fired 8 rounds

Don

[dwmalesevich]

What I am saying is not that I use the mortars but in a generated campain game in 2 games I have lost an average of 6 armored vehicles to 75mm artillery and 81mm mortors including at least one sherman, and 2 M-10's. Most losses being M-3 apcs. As a 20 year armor man I have seen what an 81mm mortor round looks like when it hits and it is not like the movies. Also If you take the square meters of a hex 2175 and the square meters of a M-3 (15) the number is way to high. If you plot out the burst radius of an 81mm mortar round at about 40 meters in diameter you get that high a hit ratio. However that diameter is the 50% hit radius on personnel targets with the shrapnal. You have to use the size of the projectile agains the area of the hex and the actual area of the vehicle. Then on an open topped pc you would have to halve the area for the open rear compartment. I could see more mobility hits or the killing of passengers rather than the destruction of the vehicle. Your example of a British 2 inch mortar killing a King Tiger is a case of using the exception to prove the rule. I doubt if that has ever happened again.

In summery what I do not like is the high precentage of vehicle kills by 75mm and 81mm mortars. If they were mobility hits I could accept that but not that many kills by mortars.


Dave Malesevich

SFC USA-Ret 19K4HA7

[Miki]

Hi gents,

Andy, Don, Thanks for looking into it.

[DRG]

We are looking into this and we are testing changes but it's a delicate balance to keep everyone happy ( well.......not EVERYONE, that's impossible.....just most people )

Don

[DRG]

dwmalesevich said:
In summery what I do not like is the high precentage of vehicle kills by 75mm and 81mm mortars. If they were mobility hits I could accept that but not that many kills by mortars.


Dave Malesevich

SFC USA-Ret 19K4HA7

We are looking into this. The "problem" was not obvious to us while playtesting. It was only after the game was released and the complaints started and we specifically set up tests that the issue really showed up. The changes to the code to make these changes are always small and subtle otherwise we end up with the pendulum on the other side. It also depends on the tests run. The first few we ran didn't really show a problem so we had to refine the tests. There are quite a number of random variables built into the game and these can throw off test results in small test samples so what you see in a couple of games may not show up in a couple of tests simple becasue the game tossed in a couple of curve balls to my test ( or your game )

Don

[dwmalesevich]

Don,

I understand what your are saying. So you understand where I am comming from leave me tell you a little about myself. 1st I have 21 years of Active Duty in the US Army as a tank commander/platoon sergeant and Master Gunner. I have also taught soldiers how to be tank commanders. On computers I go back to an Altair 6000 with 640bits of memory. In gaming I go back to 1961 and Avalon Hills D-Day. In the 70's I acquired over 100 SPI games. Your two games are the only armor games that I currently play to any extent. They are fun and fairly accuate.

What I do not like comes from over 2500 main gun rounds fired out my tanks. I do know tank gunnery.

After the 1st round is fired any competent gunner should be able to hit the target by the 2nd at latest 3rd round fired. Once you have hit the target the largest problem is solved (determining range) From then on you should be able to continue to hit the target as long as the err budget doesn't cause you to miss. In game turms once you hit you should probobly get a 15-20% bonus for contiued hits on the same target or any target within 2 hexes of the origional target.

Secondly I do not like the way that each tank will fire all of its weapons at the same target even if there is no chance of target damage. I would really like to see the possibilty of multipule engagements ie(engaging 2 or more targets with 2 or more weapons systems) In game turms this means putting the gunner on to a main gun or mg target and then letting the TC fire his 50 at a different target. The bow gunner should always engage the closest infantry in his line of sight.

I realize that I have rambled here. I'm sorry.

In conclusion please do not think that I don't like what you guys have done because I realy apprciate your hard work.

Dave Malesevich
SFC USA-Ret 19K4HA7

[Charles22]

You do recall these are WWII tanks don't you? I mean some of them didn't have anything more thna the most rudimentary optics. Also consider that your targets in many cases are not standing still, because even though the enemy unit is stationary as you see it, sometimes the unit actually has a speed that it's traveling. Of course, the shot is more difficult still when your tank is moving also. The WWII tanks found it pretty close to impossible to hit much of anything while moving as I understand, and then there's the often added difficulty if the tank hits a bump or divet in the ground, further throwing the shot off.

[dwmalesevich]

Yes I understand that these are WWII tanks I started on the M48A2 which is basicly an M-26 with a balictic computer and a rangefinder. Using the balistic sights on a tank an experianced gunner can hit moving targets by the 2nd or 3rd round. Now if you are moving (and cannot execute a short halt attack) that is a differnt story unless you are in an M-3 or M-5 light tank that had a stabalization system. Then you have a great 37mm gun that is usless against anything made after 1942. Altho there is a story about an M-8 AC that destroyed a Tiger with its 37mm. (It was a shot up the rear of the tank at about 10 feet range.)

Dave Malesevich
SFC USA-Ret 19K4HA7