quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Just a word of caution to anyone recalculating armor vs anti-armor values for AFV's.
A check of ongoing PBEM's reveals that AFV's with heavy plate and effective guns (such as Grant Tanks) do MUCH better in combat than others (such as armored cars and light tanks).

Therefore, without a layman's guide to game-code in front of me - it's logical to assume that the algorithms in code already take into account many factors - facing, probable range, non-combat breakdowns etc.
From what I already know of Naval Surface Warfare code - This does Not surprise me.

So instead of trying to re-create many variables as mentioned above, it looks like a relatively straight forward evaluation of vehicle vs gun may be the simplest and most realistic way to go to get good combat results.

Just saying.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Just a word of caution to anyone recalculating armor vs anti-armor values for AFV's.
A check of ongoing PBEM's reveals that AFV's with heavy plate and effective guns (such as Grant Tanks) do MUCH better in combat than others (such as armored cars and light tanks).

Therefore, without a layman's guide to game-code in front of me - it's logical to assume that the algorithms in code already take into account many factors - facing, probable range, non-combat breakdowns etc.
From what I already know of Naval Surface Warfare code - This does Not surprise me.

So instead of trying to re-create many variables as mentioned above, it looks like a relatively straight forward evaluation of vehicle vs gun may be the simplest and most realistic way to go to get good combat results.

Just saying.

B

Facing? Doubt it hard. It just compares raw numbers-Attack value vs. Defense. It doesn't do anything other than that.

They used to tell us that about the air-2-air combat, till I watched tons of A6m5s getting blazed by B25D1s. You telling me A6M5s always went head to head with B25D1s?

I don't think so.

Raw numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rafid
Thanks for all the comments and data, Matt. You’re right when you say that week points play an important role in the life and death of a tank. Perhaps more so than shear frontal armor thickness.

Most of these "misc enemy weapon"s will have been gruesome to the wielder.

Any idea or explanation what the "misc non-enemy weapon" column is? Operational loses (hardly a "weapon"?!), friendly fire (seems too high)? For some of the early invasions in the pacific, these make up more than 60% of the losses.

I must admit my interest is sparked, but I'll be on vacation for a week. I’ll pick it up again when I’m back and try to go through the statistical data (from here and elsewhere). I would still argue that weighting has to be based on hit received, not fatal hits. There are for example no frontal “hollow charge” fatalities in the data provided, but that doesn’t mean that the front wasn’t hit, just that it couldn’t be penetrated by such weapons. Over optimizing the weighting perhaps is perhaps not sensible (but can be fun), since impact on final results will be small.

Have a nice time.
Data came from British, Canadian, French, US Army and USMC reports. Terms and conditions varied among the nationalities and the aggregate was compiled under yet different terms and conditions. It may have been more fair to call some of the ‘side’ things, simply “hull”.

Just looking at reports done in a uniform way, using uniform terminology, you get something like:
37% front, 60% side, 3% rear, 0% top, for gunfire
31% front, 51% side, 10% rear, 8% top, for hollow charge
Don’t believe it will change much if the entire data set was evaluated in this way. One can determine turret, upper, and lower sides from the data as well as turret vs hull front. I’m afraid upper and lower glacis is not differentiable. Japanese did not possess hollow charge so ignoring it does not distort the data. Sticky bombs, Molotov cocktails, rifle grenades, and the like, are weapons whose effects are included in the close assault phase of the algorithm. They do not apply during the various fire phases. Fun to know about all those things, but essentially irrelevant to the system mechanics.

Miscellaneous losses - At Tarawa, 42 tanks were unloaded (14 M4A2, 28 M3A1). Of these, 33 were lost (combat ineffective) and of these, 23 were from misc non-enemy causes; four when their LCMs were sunk, one lost (disabled) to US Navy dive bombers, eighteen lost to electrical failure from immersion or bogging after falling into shell craters (often also water filled). Saipan exhibited similar operational causes of loss; terrain and situational mechanical/electrical failure. Yes, friendly fire is included in that loss column, but incidence was low compared to just plain old something broke or driving over a cliff.

Matt