Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, recon value, lackluster IJ cap...and more..

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, recon value, lackluster IJ cap...and more..

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 >> Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, recon value, lackluster IJ cap...and more..

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, recon... - 6/2/2019 3:19:06 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

1. Is it correct that the Australian B25s (Mitchell2) have zero armor in game and why?

2. Why does CM Tokiwa has no armor, it was an armored cruiser of the early 1900s is it assumed the armor rusted away or is inefficient in 1941 ? Click for nice picture of ship: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Japanese_cruiser_Tokiwa_1904.jpg

3. Has anyone have IJN CLs (some of them have death charges!) attack subs ?

4. The manual says that air recon results are based on experience of pilots but says nothing on recon skill level. I guess the manual left that out, right? Or can we put 20 recon value high exp fighter pilots on recon units? I will try that out just for fun.

5. Is it really worth building / researching Oscars only for their range ? I guess depends on players style if he is one very agressive and makes long way strikes they might be good for escort. On other duties like CAP they suck I must say, they had the 2-3 lucky damaging shots on 4Es so that bomber become an OPs loss. I checked an Oscar IIb unit which was for a while in thick action when the Allies bombed / bombarded / swept Munda, but only few pilots with only 1 kill. I know this debate is quite old. I just put 1 of the Oscar factories to George which just arrived. The other produces around 40 planes or so, but I am tempted to stop production. I know some say on low cap they are good but it did not work for me. Lets assume IJN units can escort IJA units too then we have Zero + George with decent range and the Frank might arrive in 7/43 or 8/43. I have already built a stock of almost 1000 Ha45 engines, so I can build lots of them, they have also an ok range..

5. Why are armor levels of tanks still so "off" in stock as well in "da babes", in the latter they tried to rectify this - but they are off too. Eg. the Sherman / M10 which had TOO HIGH armor in stock, now has TOO LOW in "babes". It is possible they took just the armor thickness, without accounting for armor SLOPE. T34, Panther and also Sherman (on the front at least) have all sloped armor and so get a bonus. And gun pen values are "off" too. I made a scen a while ago where I put better values, but I lost my data and it seems no one downloaded the scen which I put up in the sceneria forum...

If someone has downloaded it please notify me

Note the Sherman 75mm gun had better HE then AP shells the pen value in stock was way too high. Some Japanese models of course are also "off". I believe the Type1 + 2 have too high armor for example.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/3/2019 11:06:04 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Mixed bag of issues, B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit ... - 6/2/2019 4:40:01 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Oscars are worth it, they have plenty of uses. Comparing them to a Navy fighter doesn't work.

I have had CA and CL drop depth charges on Allied subs.

Some answers for you.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 2

RE: Mixed bag of issues, B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit ... - 6/2/2019 6:53:35 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

1,2,6. Yeah, well, that's just, like, database issues, man <thedude.jpg> There are still lots of those in such a huge game.

Oscars are worth getting some R&D into (yeah, range), but obviously should not be your main Army CAP fighter in the mid war.

There are far more important issues still out there, like LCUs jumping off the rails, HI getting wiped out when empty base is conquered, LCUs jumping around when circumventing an enemy occupied hex, R&D factories switching to production even if you not want them to, base % destruction on capture not working as it should e.t.c

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 6/2/2019 6:55:00 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3

RE: Mixed bag of issues, B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit ... - 6/3/2019 2:48:46 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

4. The manual says that air recon results are based on experience of pilots but says nothing on recon skill level. I guess the manual left that out, right? Or can we put 20 recon value high exp fighter pilots on recon units? I will try that out just for fun.

You don't have to test that, it's "recon skill only":

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A recon mission on a land "object" (be it permanent installation such as a base, or mobile such as a LCU) uses the pilot's recon skill value, not his overall experience value. The manual's use of the term "experience" is inexact.

Alfred

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 4

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 12:08:19 PM

Trugrit

Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

I think you do not understand the game design. The design is abstracted to produce an overall
balance to the combat which includes many other factors than armor.

The fact that in the editor you don�t see a �1� in the plane or ships armor does not mean that it has no armor just that the armor level does not rise to a level 1.

The same is true with all the other numbers. They are abstracted to work with all the other factors to produce an overall �strategic� balance to the attack and defense profiles.

I have found that the game design balance is superior overall when you consider all the other factors�Leadership, terrain, morale, weather, supply�..etc.

But�. You have the editor and you can make any changes you want.

To build Oscars is is a strategic decision made by each player depending on his/her individual style of play. There is not a correct �one size fits all� answer to that question.

The game engine picks recon pilots based on experience instead of recon skill.
The recon skill is the most important skill as the plane gets higher in altitude.

You can get good recon results with poor pilot recon skill by flying very low altitude.
Note: There is a serious danger of flack at low altitudes.

Something that is interesting in Recon missions is the sophistication of the game engine.
If you monitor the plane display you can see which plane the game picks to fly the mission.
Sometimes the pilot will hot seat the same plane for the afternoon mission, sometimes not.

The game is deceptive. On the surface with the graphics, charts and animations it looks like a standard simple
knock-off Hex wargame but underneath is a very sophisticated game design. The best strategic wargame design that I have ever seen.

I recommend you look much deeper into the overall design before you mess with it.

Just my two cents.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 5

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 12:49:10 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

5. Why are armor levels of tanks still so "off" in stock as well in "da babes", in the latter they tried to rectify this - but they are off too.

5. Tank armor is �on� or �off�, depending on your perspective. Looking for the largest number that one can possibly find is nonsensical. When dealing with large numbers of tanks, and large numbers of anti tank guns, rounds do not strike all vehicles at precisely the front glacis, with precisely the correct obliquity. Fire comes from all directions, with all impact obliquities.
Post-war, the US and UK did extensive studies to develop the probability density of hits and penetrative hits, as a function of location, on both their own and German vehicles. The Fifth Directorate, GRU undertook their own studies, publishing results that were substantially (statistically) identical to the US and UK data.
Babes implements a simplified �box-rule� that divides a vehicle into area sections: upper glacis, lower glacis, 2x upper hull, 2x lower hull, turret front, 2x turret sides, integrated rear. Each section represents a percentage of the area of the whole. The probability density function is applied to each area, giving 7 numbers. Armor thickness for each area is multiplied by that areas factor, and the sum is divided by vertical surface area (all 10 arreas).
This gives an �effective� armor thickness that accounts for side shots, track kills, look-downs from higher elevations, lurking 2-pounders, crazy Scots with PIATs, etc.
Tigers, Panthers, Churchills, Easy 8s, KV-2s, IS-2s, were all knocked out, despite their so-called invulnerable �magic number� front armor thickness. Hit location probability density helps overcome an otherwise nonsensical situation, particularly when dealing with battalions of tanks and guns aggregated into a single computational mass.
Hope this explains �why� things are as they are.

5. Pen values are also factored. The game cannot model the ballistics of every barrel against the aspect of every target and must account for large aggregates of guns and vehicles computationally.
Babes models penetration of weapons, at nominal (doctrinal) engagement ranges, by weapon size class. A 2-pounder does not engage at 1500 meters, neither does an 88 engage at 200 meters. Therefore, smaller guns have pen values taken at smaller ranges, while larger guns have pen values taken accordingly. Babes uses four range �bands�. Again, it is a probability density function, that works in conjunction with the probability density function of the vehicle armor values.
Base values of penetration must all be taken from the same source, so that all data is treated uniformly. Looking for a �better� number somewhere else opens one up to the obvious counter; someone else can always find a �worst� number to argue with. If everything is uniformly relative, and internally self-consistent, arguments become simple exercises in boi-ism.

< Message edited by US87891 -- 6/3/2019 1:24:46 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 6

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 1:18:57 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I think you do not understand the game design.

I played this game for quite a while and for sure there are still things I do not understand.

However I wondered if there is a reason that the Aussie B25s do not have the 1 armor point like all the other nations ones have. First I thought perhaps then the Australian ordered a lighter plane with better range or load. But as you can see the other stats are the same (well 2 more manouvre points, so this seems to explain it

)

And for the other armor issue CM (ex armored cruiser) Tokiwa, Wiki gives these armor values:

Armor:
Waterline belt: 89�178 mm (3.5�7.0 in)
Deck: 51 mm (2.0 in)
Gun Turret: 160 mm (6.3 in)
Barbette: 152 mm (6.0 in)
Casemate: 51�152 mm (2.0�6.0 in)
Conning tower: 356 mm (14.0 in)
Bulkhead: 127 mm (5.0 in)

So I was also wondering why it has no armor in game. As other pointed out quite minor issues but I am curious if these "errors" are still in game for so long there mioght be reason for it. Otherwise they would be corrected already in one of the patches I assume ?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/3/2019 1:36:43 PM >

(in reply to Trugrit)

Post #: 7

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 1:49:23 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Ok I did google for "Australian B25s" and Wiki said in 1944 they received those. Note it says 8/42 as available date "in game". So these are probably the DUTCH B25s for which info can be found here:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b25_23.html

Here the relevant part:

quote:

During March, five of the airplanes on the Dutch order had reached Bangalore, India and 12 had reached Archerfield in Australia.

Unfortunately, these planes were too late to help stem the Japanese advance, and the Netherlands East Indies capitulated to the Japanese on March 9. The United States government no longer recognized the NEIAF as an independent fighting force.

The B-25s in India (NEIAF serials N5-139, N5-143, N5-144, N5-145, and N5-148) were requisitioned by the RAF and were modified to photographic reconnaissance configuration. Two of them were assigned RAF numbers MA956 and MA957, but the other three retained their NEI numbers of N5-144, 145, and 145. All were eventually assigned to No 681 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron in India.

It was agreed that the B-25s in Australia would be used as the nucleus of a new squadron, designated No. 18. This squadron would be staffed jointly by Australian and Dutch aircrews plus a smattering of aircrews from other nations, but would operate at least initially under Royal Australian Air Force command. However, the B-25s of No. 18 Squadron would be painted with the Dutch national insignia (at this time a rectangular Netherlands flag) and would carry NEIAF serials.

However, the Archerfield B-25s were immediately "requisitioned" by the USAAF in the desperate attempt to halt the Japanese advance toward Port Moresby. It was agreed that the Dutch government would be credited accordingly, or else the planes would be replaced on a one-to-one basis by later deliveries. The next batch of B-25Cs were promised to the Dutch, but these too were seized by the USAAF. The first five B-25Cs delivered to this squadron had carried the NEIAF serial numbers N5-132, N5-134, N55-135, N5-136 and N5-151. In late June, another five (N5-122, N5-124, N5-125, N5-126, and N5-127) were delivered, apparently replacing the first five B-25Cs which had "disappeared" into USAAF service during the interim.

It was not until August of 1942 that No 18 Squadron finally received its "permanent" supply of Mitchells, all new deliveries from the North American factory. Although most of the crew members in No. 18 Squadron were Dutch or Australian, there were representatives of no fewer than 38 nationalities who spoke 13 different languages. No. 18 Squadron spent most of its time in training around Canberra and in antisubmarine patrols. In December of 1942, 18 Squadron moved to a new base at MacDonald in the Northern Territories.

Discounting the ten "temporary" B-25s delivered to 18 Squadron in early 1942, a total of 150 Mitchells were taken on strength by the NEIAF, 19 in 1942, 16 in 1943, 87 in 1944, and 28 in 1945. They flew bombing raids against Japanese targets in the East Indies. In 1944, the more capable B-25J Mitchell replaced most of the earlier C and D models. As the Japanese were pushed farther back, enemy targets became progressively more distant from Australian bases, and some thought was given to replacing the Mitchell in Dutch service with the longer-ranging B-24 Liberator. However this plan came to naught.

And from Wiki ...Mitchell II was actually a RAF designation, which was the B25C - so still the armor issue not explained. It does not say the B25C and RAF Mitchell II differed in protection:

quote:

B-25C
Improved version of the B-25B: powerplants upgraded from Wright R-2600-9 radials to R-2600-13s; de-icing and anti-icing equipment added; the navigator received a sighting blister; nose armament was increased to two .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, one fixed and one flexible. The B-25C model was the first mass-produced B-25 version; it was also used in the United Kingdom (as the Mitchell Mk II), in Canada, China, the Netherlands and the Soviet Union. (Number made: 1,625.)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/3/2019 2:13:29 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 8

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 2:53:01 PM

Rafid

Posts: 130
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

5. Why are armor levels of tanks still so "off" in stock as well in "da babes", in the latter they tried to rectify this - but they are off too. Eg. the Sherman / M10 which had TOO HIGH armor in stock, now has TOO LOW in "babes". It is possible they took just the armor thickness, without accounting for armor SLOPE. T34, Panther and also Sherman (on the front at least) have all sloped armor and so get a bonus. And gun pen values are "off" too. I made a scen a while ago where I put better values, but I lost my data and it seems no one downloaded the scen which I put up in the sceneria forum... If someone has downloaded it please notify me Note the Sherman 75mm gun had better HE then AP shells the pen value in stock was way too high. Some Japanese models of course are also "off". I believe the Type1 + 2 have too high armor for example.

US87891 already gave you a good answer, but I still like to add my two cents.

First to understand the history of AFV armor values it and the different approaches in stock and babes it's a good idea to read this post by Symon.

Unlike US87891 I think that the babes' database is also flawed regarding this topic (while it's still a definite improvement over stock). The main problem is that Mike Osterhaut's box revaluation (described above) was not applied to the whole database but just the allied AFVs. As a result the Japanese AFVs kept their inflated armor and penetration values from stock and are now extremely overrated relative to their American and Commonwealth counterparts. For example a Type 1 medium tank is markedly superior to a M4 Sherman in Babes, when the opposite was likely true in real life. Further, AT guns weren�t changed for either side, which means that allied tank and AT guns are totally inconsistent. To give just one of many possible examples the American 37mm AT gun has penetration 53 while the M5 Stuart - which is using that very gun - has penetration 42.

The details of the box revaluation might also be argued � I too think they give too small numbers for armor � but the general idea was sound, had it only been applied to the whole database.

I�ve been working on my own revaluation of armor, penetration and anti-armor but I�m not finished. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss the subject further. Unfortunately I didn�t download your modified scenario.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 9

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 2:55:44 PM

Trugrit

Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

The game designers may have been modeling the Australian Strafer Variant.

They may have dropped the armor rating slightly to reflect the severe modifications.
They did not add the guns because of over balance. Maybe?

Pappy�s Folly:
Australian Paul Gunn�s modification of the B-25s. Maybe the ones he stole from the Dutch Air Force.
He relocated the fuselage fuel tank to change the center of gravity.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-north-american-b-25-mitchell-bomber/

B-25 Strafer Variant
During the middle of 1942 in Australia, "Pappy" Gunn pioneered the modification of the nose section of a B-25C and B-25D Mitchells into a strafer variant. Initially, 3rd Bombardment Group B-25s were field modified to remove the nose crew positions and instead up to eight forward firing .50 caliber machine guns plus and additional four bolted to each side of the nose. Later, B-25s were modified into "strafer" variants by the 4th Air Depot at Garbutt Field near Townsville.

� North American B-25 Mitchell - Technical Information
Source: https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-25/tech.html

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 10

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 3:01:27 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

RAFID: I did not want to "knock" the DBB scen btw. I find it is a good improvement, what I do like most is that later war IJ planes get better speed - like the Ki100 it is only 360 in stock. Not even teh IJ was mad enough to build such a slow plane in 1945

The DBB value for eg. this plane as well George seem more on the mark. However there is a smll catch which is aviation fuel, I believe DBB took some values from US tests of IJ planes, they captured enough in 44/45 on aifields where planes were grounded due to lack of fuel and spare parts. IJ planes were transported to proving grounds with good infrastructure (better than the IJ bases on island for sure). And the US used there own aviation fuel for the tests. It is possible this fuel was better then the IJ avgas. So these plane tests turned out that the planes good fly faster then first assumed. Or Francillion writes in his book. Mabye this is a small issue as the engines were not optimized for the better fuel anyway but the good infrstructure of US bases also contributed that the captured planes performed better (mostly faster).... however I believe in case of at least late George and Ki100 the DBB values are justified over the lower stock values.

I also liked that it seems bombardent TFs incur higher sys and/or eng damage. Which makes the "ship bombardement trains" of stock more difficult. It seems they modelled the full speed run and wear/tear on guns better than stock

And for sure it has more potent AA then stock. Sadly the best Japanese AA gun (10cm) was not given better values then stock, it should have higher AA value for sure. So the Akitsuki class would have a good AA value, which it has not fully like in real life cause their 10cm guns are underrated in the database :(

Re. the tanks armor and anti armor values I will post some values in the next post, I noted the "insane" values in "stock" are already somewhat better in this last beta stock game I play (which is a pbm as IJ). I also play a DBB game as Allied vs. AI (which ofc has the normal AI issues taken now for granted but it still fun). One of the insane values in earlier stock was the Sherman having either armor of 120 or anti tank of 120 can�t remember..this is now somewhat better. BUT here a delicate issue, I noted yesterday the "Sherman CS" tank has the same or lower HE value then the "normal" Sherman. Note that the Sherman CS was the Sherman 105! So must have higher HE value. Even if we assume the 105mm had slower reloading time it has much bigger "oomph" vs. soft targets. There was ofc also a heat round for the 105mm. I do not know how good it was and how many the 105mm Sherman would carry (mostly HE I think). In Steel Panthers the HEAT rounds generally have much lower hit% because the shell is much slower then AP rounds.

TRUGRIT: Mabe this is the solution, but the Mitchell II was the "normal" B25 not the strafer variant. Some were field modifications however. But then these Mitchells should have the forward 0,50cal Mgs (up to 8 iirc)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/3/2019 3:56:31 PM >

(in reply to Rafid)

Post #: 11

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 3:37:14 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

To simplify the Sherman issue for example, we would have 5 Sherman variants:

1. The "normal" 75mm "early" Sherman
2. The "normal" 75mm "late" Sherman (eg. so called "easy8")
3. The "upgunned" 76mm Sherman which was mostly a "late" one (2)
4. The "upgunned" 105mm Sherman which could be an early or late one - make it a late one cause the 105mm was on time for Normandy I believe.
5. The Sherman flamethrower

And the British and Soviet modells are the same and not differing much from the US ones (like some of them do in the database).I think the major change the "exported or lend lease" Sherman might had is it having a diesel engine (the soviets did not like the petrol engine).

Then we have 2 variants which need not to be included imho anf if then very late.

6. The "Sherman Firefly" which was a 17pdr gun cramped in the turret. Not used by the Brits in the far east at all I believe. But possibly some would be shipped after the war in Europe ended.
7. The lend lease 76mm Sherman of the USSR, they mostly used the 75mm variant and against the IJA tanks it would be enough anyway. THoughts?
8. "Sherman Jumbo" uparmored "assault" tank only a late arrival in game or does not need to be there at all

Click here to find pics and info of the Soviet 75mm and 76mm at Kubinka:
http://tank-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/m4a4-sherman-tank-kubinka-russia.html

As you can see unlike the T34 and Panther the Sherman had only a frontal slope but not at the sides...and btw. there is an issue with sloped armor! It detracts from the working space inside the tank. Eg. the non sloped armor Tiger,Pz4+3 had better crew conditions then both Panther and T34 (more space inside cause these had non sloped armor).

Note that also the Sherman (like Panther) were quite high, making them a better target. In game terms this could relate to a distraction of protection value. Like eg. the M18 TD was very fast but low armor. However the speed and agility of it would add to protection imho.

WHat is the "Sherman V" in game supposed to be, probably a British lend least tank. But why does it have so much higher values than the other Shermans? 60 armor and 120 anti tank ? Can only be a Firefly which were NOT in the theatre at all and for sure not starting in 12/43 was not even built for Europe then.Also the Firefly had the same armor as the normal Sherman if at all it might have lower values for the turret, cause of the huge gun...

Mh Wiki says the Sherman V is only a normal 75mm tank:

quote:

Sherman V - M4A4 with 75 mm M3 L/40 gun and Chrysler A57 multibank 30-cylinder "cloverleaf" petrol engine in a longer rear hull with more widely spaced bogies

Rafid, some IJ tanks are overpowered too, type95 light, type89 and type1 if you ask me. Btw. I kind of like type1 it seems to have been inspired by the Pz3.

Also interesting, the M5 Stuart has armor of 38, while a T34/85 has armor of 50

So there is only a 12 point difference in game

And the SAME anti soft

37mm vs. 85mm should be a "bit more" different.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/3/2019 5:08:56 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 12

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 5:32:24 PM

Rafid

Posts: 130
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

I also didn't want to knock on the babes scenarios. They're great and massive improvements.

But in this specific area: armor and penetration values of AFVs and tank guns they have a ton of inconsistencies.

Concerning the Sherman V and it's odd values (60/120): They are simply the old stock values of the Sherman. As I said: some AFVs are rerated and some aren't, which leads to big inconsistencies and a Japanese bias (since all IJA AFVs still have their high stock values). According to this site the "Sherman V" was the British designation of the M4A4 which would probably fall under "1. The "normal" 75mm "early" Sherman" in your classification.

The way the device replacement and upgrade system works in game, having that 7-8 devices - each with small replacement rate or time windows of production - might raise some handling problems. For the US we currently have only three:

a) M4 Sherman (most likely to represent both 1. and 2. on your counting)
b) M4 Sherman CS-Tank - (your 4.: The 105mm version). This one really needs higher anti-soft than it currently has!
c) M4 Zippo (your 5.)

I would perhaps add one device to represent the "easy eight" with all the late war innovations (HVSS, 76mm and wet ammo storage), but not go into a bigger fragmentation of devices. All other nations currently have at most one Sherman type and I would perhaps leave it at that.

As you also rightly mentioned some important features like profile, speed, crew conditions are usually not used in the rating of tanks, but can be great importance. If you're interested in going that route I can recommend Nigel Askey's "Operation Barbarossa" Volume I. Though obviously aimed at different theater he propoeses rating calculations to include arcane things like "turret basket effect" and "turret crew effiency" as well as size and speed. I personally don't like his seperate handling of angle and thickness of armor plates, but he has some good arguments and ideas what goes into the overall effiency of a tank.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 13

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/3/2019 5:51:52 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

I took values from "stock scen2" and what I beleive latest beta, which turns I monitor in tracker.

So the type1 has 50 arm and 80 antiarm. Even if the 47mm gun was quite good, this is too high, the 47mm AT gun oth has 52 antiarm. Same weapon. Also type95 has 12/50 the 37mm AT gun has 36. One might add 1-2 points to the tank weapon cause it is more mobile perhaps.

I propose for Type1 40 armor (quite small but not much slope) and 54 antiarm. For type95 15 armor (small+mobile) and 38 antiarm.

M5 Stuart has 38 arm / 42 antiarm / 17 antisoft
37mm at gun has 53 antiarm / 16 antisoft

I propose for M5 Stuart 34 arm (has not much more armor than M3 but quite small and mobile) and 41 antiarm (37mm AT gun value is too high!) See from Wiki:

quote:

Limitations of the 37mm gun
On 9 December 1944, the 759th Tank Battalion advanced on a hill near Bogheim but was subjected to a counter-attack by German forces, including a heavy self-propelled assault gun, which took "over 100 direct hits" at ranges as low as 75 yd (69 m) with "no appreciable damage".[29]

In January 1945, a report to General Eisenhower concluded that the Stuart was "obsolete in every respect as a fighting tank" and that it would not "turn the German fire or the 37mm gun damage the German tanks or SP guns".

Also antisoft is too high, even if M5 had 3 Mgs. The 37mm He shell is small, so lets say 14 antisoft

Edit also from Wiki, it seems the M3 Stuart was not a sure winner if pitted against light Japanese armor:

quote:

...the first U.S. tank versus tank combat to occur in World War II, began on 22 December 1941, when a platoon of five M3s led by Lieutenant Ben R. Morin engaged the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) 4th Tank Regiment's Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks north of Damortis. Lt. Morin maneuvered his M3 off the road, but took a direct hit while doing so, and his tank began to burn. The other four M3s were also hit, but managed to leave the field under their own power.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/3/2019 6:21:17 PM >

(in reply to Rafid)

Post #: 14

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/4/2019 12:09:04 PM

Rafid

Posts: 130
Joined: 1/24/2015
Status: offline

We should perhaps move this to another thread at some point. But a few mixed comments:

- I currently have armor values as follows (based on a formula including only thickness and angle, but neither tank size nor speed):
Type 1: 36
M3 Stuart: 27
M5 Stuart: 37
And yes: an American "light" (M5) had protection comparable to a Japanese "medium" (Type 1) tank. Interestingly, these two tanks have similar total weight. I guess it's a matter of choice to call something "light" or "medium".

- On anti-armor I generally have higher values than you propose (I used penetration of homogenous rolled plate at 500 yards and normal impact angle in mm). I used raw penetration for AFVs and 0.9 times raw penetration for AT guns. In the current databases (both stock and babes) pen = anti-armor is true for almost all tanks (all except one, and it's likely a typo there). The relation for AT guns is less standardized, but multiplication by 0.9 was approximately the average. BTW getting a good value for the US 37mm is next to impossible. No gun that is decently researched has such an incredibly amount of scatter in its reported penetration characteristics.

- Do you think, that anti-soft should be based mostly on the MGs or size of the HE shell? Note that a few early commonwealth tanks actually had no HE shell (Mathilda II, Valentine III) - their anti-soft should really be lowered.

- The Type 95 and M3 both could penetrate the others armor. In such a setting things like rate of fire, accuracy, optics (or anything else that increases the chance to hit) of the tank start to matter. Additionally of course to the circumstances of the engagement (surprise, relative positions, cover,...)

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 15

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/5/2019 9:13:07 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafid

We should perhaps move this to another thread at some point. But a few mixed comments:

Rafid there was a thread in scenario forum I believe where the exact topic was discussed. There were also 2 more people (plus myself) interested in this stuff. Most here I believe are "navy guys/fans" and secondly "air guys". But are not so interested in land combat stuff I think. So we get not much participation here

I am interested in all 3 services tho. I played mostly land combat and a bit air before. Except naval combat with Harpoon and Silent Hunter etc. I researched naval stuff more esp. the pacitfic side since I started to play WITP-AE. As an example of quite exact values for tanks we can use Steel Panthers too. There are 2 free downloads of the WAW and WW2 variants I believe still. I may install it again and check their latest values :) There is also TOAW3/4 but this one had also questionable values for tanks.

We can use your and my values and take the middle ground of them to have perhaps a good basis. Here is also a site I found for IJ armor and arty (also other weapons but these 2 categories are most detailed - in fact it is the most detailed info I found at all for Japanese weapons, but it is in German):

http://www.ww2technik.de/jap%20armeewaffen%20main.htm

Some links are broken and the site is not finished but armor, arty, mortars, AA seem to be complete...there are some weapons which seemed to be top class of the Japanese contrary to polular opinion. Eg. The Type95 was a top light tank before 1940 or so. And 75mm fields gun very good, as well a 10 cm gun as well some of the mortars. The AA lacked a bit of course.

Totally agree on the 2pdr. This was also brought up in the other thread, someone suggested that there WAS a HE shell for the gun, but not widely distributed or used. I found however in every article about eg. Mathilda 2pdr. that there was NO he shell. So every 2pdr gun needs to be distracted from HE value (or antisoft). Only the MGs then would count as well a samll value for the 2pdr AP shell. I would add however 1 or 2 points the antisoft of the Mathilda (just like I would do on the KV1 for example), as these tanks were so heavily armored and the enemy shells would bounce mostly - this creates a "shock" value for infantry facing these tanks imho.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/5/2019 9:21:53 AM >

(in reply to Rafid)

Post #: 16

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/5/2019 11:04:58 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafid

We should perhaps move this to another thread at some point. But a few mixed comments:

Most here I believe are "navy guys/fans" and secondly "air guys". But are not so interested in land combat stuff I think. So we get not much participation here

I am not sure that is true, but the game simply doesn't give enough chrome with respect to ground combats.

One addition, I would like to see before any other change/improvement to the game is a few more lines of descriptors on ground combat reports detailing some of the larger/better devices present... type of tanks mainly, but heavy artillery might be nice too perhaps flamethrowers.

It could be simple like: "Type 3 Medium tanks spotted" "Sherman tank destroyed"

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 17

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/5/2019 11:51:54 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Agreed I would also like more info on the type of "vehicle" destroyed or damaged in the game, this can reach from a jeep to a Sherman and so is a "bit" of a difference. Also more info on why air units do not fly..

I just downloaded 8.2 SPWAW... need to find the patches. When I tried to run it it gave distorted graphics. I found this forum named SP depot. I know the usernames of almost all of them from the past good SP days.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/solutions-to-known-problems-t283.html

They have a solution that the game runs in Win7 a fix which ends Win Explorer (!) they say during game. However when I end the game I have an empty desktop LOL I needed to re-start. Win 7 is now also old, but still running even older games with it is often still problematic. I tried to re-install also the 1. RTW game (the 3rd in the series) this worked ok. However RTW desperatly needs a mod cause the "vanilla" game is not very historic. I used the "Rome total realism" mod in the past when still running XP worked fine. Now this mod won�t even install on Win7 - I tried to google fixes but nothing worked really. If someone has Win 7 64 and knows how to run "Rome total war, total realism mod" let me urgently know. I tried another mod which installed "Chivalry total war" (middle aged mod). However this one crashes quite a bit

Also it seems it is quite unbalanced I tried the vikings 3 times and every time get crushes. I tried the southern Italian ones (Pisa ? I do not remember their name) and quickly became rich as fxxx. It got quite boring and as said it crashed sometimes....

SO back to tank topic I found at the depot also this download lin, which is probably the best ever you can find for AT-wepaons penetration etc. Here the PDF in this thread: (POST 6)

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/gun-referance-info-t466.html

For me it is quite overhelming this PDF, but others might find it cooool

Edit, here another serious issue, US TDs arrive to early. At least the M10 and M36 do 100% much too early. Even to early for Europe where they were allocated firstly.

Edit2, click here to find a TOAW loss report (which shows every single device):
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/45799/B174907FB0AE4419A02D839185EA8E3E.jpg

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/5/2019 12:22:31 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 18

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/5/2019 1:32:29 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafid

We should perhaps move this to another thread at some point. But a few mixed comments:

Most here I believe are "navy guys/fans" and secondly "air guys". But are not so interested in land combat stuff I think. So we get not much participation here

I am not sure that is true, but the game simply doesn't give enough chrome with respect to ground combats.

One addition, I would like to see before any other change/improvement to the game is a few more lines of descriptors on ground combat reports detailing some of the larger/better devices present... type of tanks mainly, but heavy artillery might be nice too perhaps flamethrowers.

It could be simple like: "Type 3 Medium tanks spotted" "Sherman tank destroyed"

Mention of the Type 3 IJA tank sent me looking for info and I learned of the Tank Encyclopedia. Here is the Japanese AFV page:

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/jap/ww2_IJN_Tanks.php

And a chart that displays the AFV images"

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 Lowpe)

Post #: 19

RE: Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, r... - 6/5/2019 2:35:14 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

JFI, SPWAW 8.4 works now on Win7 - one needs to apply the 8.4 patch first. If you exit the game the win explorer is re-started. Cool OOB the Japanese have, eg. 1945 project "phantasy" tanks from which only a prototype existed, as well caves, air support of Lilies, Franks etc. and best of all "militia squads" with bamboo spears and ceramic grenades

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Questions re., B25 armor, CM armor, CLs anit sub, recon value, lackluster IJ cap...and more..

Page: [1]