Penetration/Armor role in classic PzC

[Yrfin]

Hi PzC community !

Im just start this Topic for discussion about Penetration/Armor (HA/GD in terms PzC).

images.jpg (5.18 KiB) Viewed 3895 times

Any suggestion are welcome

[lennis29]

The defensive value of the Hetzer is very low, as I understand it, its frontal armor could withstand the impacts of the 76mm calibers of the T-34 (1940 and 1941) and the Sherman

[Yrfin]

The defensive value of the Hetzer is very low, as I understand it, its frontal armor could withstand the impacts of the 76mm calibers of the T-34 (1940 and 1941) and the Sherman

Agreed.

Hetzer Armor 2.jpg (79.44 KiB) Viewed 3879 times

60 mm Armor (+40 degree) = 90 mm (my table GD = 17, guille - 15, vanilla- 10 )

Hetzer Stats.jpg (23.87 KiB) Viewed 3878 times

Blue color - vanilla, Red color - changed value.
Second string - in Ambush Mode (camo trait, switchable).

Hetzer Penetration.jpg (59.19 KiB) Viewed 3876 times

Penetration = 85 mm = GD 17 (my table).

[lennis29]

The defensive value of the Hetzer is very low, as I understand it, its frontal armor could withstand the impacts of the 76mm calibers of the T-34 (1940 and 1941) and the Sherman

Agreed.
Hetzer Armor 2.jpg
60 mm Armor (+40 degree) = 90 mm (my table GD = 17, guille - 15, vanilla- 10 )
Hetzer Stats.jpg
Blue color - vanilla, Red color - changed value.
Second string - in Ambush Mode (camo trait, switchable).
Hetzer Penetration.jpg
Penetration = 85 mm = GD 17 (my table).

in Ambush Mode ( You should have more spotting because you are on the lookout for the enemy for the ambush, already in motion, this value can decrease to 1 because visibility is lower.)

The value of 15 to 17 GD is really more acceptable, to give it a utility, because with 10, you only put it to see how they destroy it at once.

I see that it has a value of 16 HA.
the Hetzer uses a 75mm L / 48 variant
that value of (HA. 16), so does the Pz.IV H, 75mm Pak 40, Marder II, III and JagdPz IV/48.

Another issue is the little difference between the 50mm Pak and the 75mm one of only one point, seeing that you put 16 to the 75mm L / 48, I imagine that would be the standard for that caliber.

[lennis29]

You can share the HA table, like the one you shared from the GD

[guille1434]

Ooohhh... This Gun vs. armor effectiveness topic is so interesting to me...

About the Hetzer... According to the Encyclopedia of German tanks of WWII (Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle) the Hetzer had a 60 mm frontal armor plate inclined a good 60º from the vertical... That calculates to 120 mm of relative thickness In "my" table that would give a GD value of 17 and a little higher according to Yrfin´s one (I dont have it at hand, but may be 19?). But, this is a big "but", it had only side and rear armor made of 20 mm (inclined 40º from vertical at the sides) plates, so when fired from the sides (and also from rear) this was a very vulnerable vehicle. In fact I think that this slim armor was vulnerable even to 37/40 mm guns. May be that was the reason because the Hetzer got a low GD value in the vanilla game equipment table.

As I also like to give SPAT units an ambush mode switch besides that the regular mode switch, I would give a good GD value to this unit when waiting in ambush, because if hit, the vehicle would probably receive the impacts over its frontal armor (I also give SPAT units a move value = 1 when in ambush mode, just to give them freedom of move if the unit have to retreat if suppressed by the enemy, but to avoid them being able to move forward to chase for the enemy, after all, it is "waiting in ambush"). I also agree to give higher Initiative values when in "ambush" mode.

All in all, I would also give the GD 17 to the Hetzer while it is waiting in ambush (ambush mode switch), but I would severely penalize it when in the "normal" switch stance, because when advancing to meet the enemy, it would be more probabilities for the vehicle of taking hits over the thin side armor plates, and not almost exclusively to receive fire from the front arc. I think I would reduce 3 or 4 points the GD value when used in the "mobile" (i.e. not ambush) mode. All this, in my opinion, would make a good balance of the advantages of this vehicle (low silhouette, very good frontal armor) when waiting in a defensive position, but also to show its weaknesses when used as a conventional tank (The Germans tended to use AT vehicles in tank roles in late war because they were short on tanks). That weaknesses would be, mainly, the casemate-fixed gun (when the vehicle has to turn to point its gun to some target, it would also expose its side to some other enemy weapons, probably) and the weak side/rear armor.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Sorry for the looong, dry posting...

[Yrfin]

in Ambush Mode ( You should have more spotting because you are on the lookout for the enemy for the ambush, already in motion, this value can decrease to 1 because visibility is lower.)

I see that it has a value of 16 HA.
the Hetzer uses a 75mm L / 48 variant
that value of (HA. 16), so does the Pz.IV H, 75mm Pak 40, Marder II, III and JagdPz IV/48.

In my Penetration table (German cannon) see: viewtopic.php?f=147&t=101081&p=898639#p898639

Penetration.rar

(143.32 KiB) Downloaded 130 times

82-85 mm (1000 m/30 degree, standart AP) = 17.
My GD table (80 mm = 16, up 80 = 17)

Another issue is the little difference between the 50mm Pak and the 75mm one of only one point, seeing that you put 16 to the 75mm L / 48, I imagine that would be the standard for that caliber.

In real its a BIG difference between 5.0 cm and 7.5 cm PaK

[lennis29]

Ooohhh... This Gun vs. armor effectiveness topic is so interesting to me...

About the Hetzer... According to the Encyclopedia of German tanks of WWII (Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle) the Hetzer had a 60 mm frontal armor plate inclined a good 60º from the vertical... That calculates to 120 mm of relative thickness In "my" table that would give a GD value of 17 and a little higher according to Yrfin´s one (I dont have it at hand, but may be 19?). But, this is a big "but", it had only side and rear armor made of 20 mm (inclined 40º from vertical at the sides) plates, so when fired from the sides (and also from rear) this was a very vulnerable vehicle. In fact I think that this slim armor was vulnerable even to 37/40 mm guns. May be that was the reason because the Hetzer got a low GD value in the vanilla game equipment table.

As I also like to give SPAT units an ambush mode switch besides that the regular mode switch, I would give a good GD value to this unit when waiting in ambush, because if hit, the vehicle would probably receive the impacts over its frontal armor (I also give SPAT units a move value = 1 when in ambush mode, just to give them freedom of move if the unit have to retreat if suppressed by the enemy, but to avoid them being able to move forward to chase for the enemy, after all, it is "waiting in ambush"). I also agree to give higher Initiative values when in "ambush" mode.

All in all, I would also give the GD 17 to the Hetzer while it is waiting in ambush (ambush mode switch), but I would severely penalize it when in the "normal" switch stance, because when advancing to meet the enemy, it would be more probabilities for the vehicle of taking hits over the thin side armor plates, and not almost exclusively to receive fire from the front arc. I think I would reduce 3 or 4 points the GD value when used in the "mobile" (i.e. not ambush) mode. All this, in my opinion, would make a good balance of the advantages of this vehicle (low silhouette, very good frontal armor) when waiting in a defensive position, but also to show its weaknesses when used as a conventional tank (The Germans tended to use AT vehicles in tank roles in late war because they were short on tanks). That weaknesses would be, mainly, the casemate-fixed gun (when the vehicle has to turn to point its gun to some target, it would also expose its side to some other enemy weapons, probably) and the weak side/rear armor.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Sorry for the looong, dry posting...

Let's see if I understand you, when you say to use it as a conventional tank, it is to do the Hatzer class 1 and in ambush mode in class 3.
his GD in tank mode would be 12 and in ambush mode it would be 17.

a standard value for the Hetzer can also be calculated.
Front 120mm and sides 20mm.
According to the YrFrin defense table it would be 120 mm (20 GD) and Sides 20 mm (7 GD), so 20 + 7 = 27 and that I divide by 2, it would be 14 GD

[lennis29]

in Ambush Mode ( You should have more spotting because you are on the lookout for the enemy for the ambush, already in motion, this value can decrease to 1 because visibility is lower.)

I see that it has a value of 16 HA.
the Hetzer uses a 75mm L / 48 variant
that value of (HA. 16), so does the Pz.IV H, 75mm Pak 40, Marder II, III and JagdPz IV/48.

In my Penetration table (German cannon) see: viewtopic.php?f=147&t=101081&p=898639#p898639
Penetration.rar
82-85 mm (1000 m/30 degree, standart AP) = 17.
My GD table (80 mm = 16, up 80 = 17)

Another issue is the little difference between the 50mm Pak and the 75mm one of only one point, seeing that you put 16 to the 75mm L / 48, I imagine that would be the standard for that caliber.

In real its a BIG difference between 5.0 cm and 7.5 cm PaK

jajajajajja I do not understand that table, I am more practical, it is like the one you have in Excel

[guille1434]

Let's see if I understand you, when you say to use it as a conventional tank, it is to do the Hatzer class 1 and in ambush mode in class 3.
his GD in tank mode would be 12 and in ambush mode it would be 17.

a standard value for the Hetzer can also be calculated.
Front 120mm and sides 20mm.
According to the YrFrin defense table it would be 120 mm (20 GD) and Sides 20 mm (7 GD), so 20 + 7 = 27 and that I divide by 2, it would be 14 GD

Hello Lennis, thanks for following this conversation...

AT and ambush mode switches: I dont chage the "mobile AT" unit (in this case, the Hetzer) to tank class... I just leave both switches in the AT class (3), because the game gives an initiative advantage to AT units when receiving an attack from tank class units (or, at lest, that rule used to be true in earlier versions of the game) but I give better initiative, hard attack, and defense values to the unit in question. Also, as I said before reduce the movement to 1 hex when in "ambush" mode.

Calculating GD when a unit has strong frontal armor and weak side and rear armor: I dont know if it would be completely accurate to make a direct average calculation beween the full frontal GD value and the side armor GD value more... After all, while advancing, it is still more probable that the vehicle receive frontal hits than lateral hits, so reducing 6 points of GD seems a rather high penalization to me. Becuse of that, I would reduce to half that penalization, so, as I said, instead of -6 GD I would just give the unit a -3 or -4. On the other side, as Yrfin´s table uses higher values, a 20/13 (rounding down) would be about right, and a 17/13 set of values, using "my" table. It is a matter of making some tests in game...

[Yrfin]

jajajajajja I do not understand that table, I am more practical, it is like the one you have in Excel

HA-GD table.jpg (152 KiB) Viewed 3816 times

[lennis29]

jajajajajja I do not understand that table, I am more practical, it is like the one you have in Excel

HA-GD table.jpg

Excellent information

[Yrfin]

Next object for discuss: AT Marder Series based on 76.2 mm (modifided F-22 Russian Gun).

Marder 76.2 mm view.jpg (102.14 KiB) Viewed 3773 times

Marders 7.62 cm stats.jpg (36.62 KiB) Viewed 3773 times

[lennis29]

Next object for discuss: AT Marder Series based on 76.2 mm (modifided F-22 Russian Gun).
Marder 76.2 mm view.jpg

Marders 7.62 cm stats.jpg

- What is the use of the initiative?
- That 76.2 mm was the same one used by the T-34 and the Kv-1?

[captainjack]

There's a reasonable case for allowing AT units slightly better HA than the equivalent tank gun. Firstly, the limited supplies of tungsten cored APCR (or HVAP for the US guns) was preferentially issued to specialised AT units, so they should be more effectivein the AT role. Secondly because while tank gunners did fire at tanks, this was one thing they did along with other jobs such as scouting, blowing up pillboxes, machine gunning soft targets etc, the AT gunners trained specifically to shoot at tanks, so should be expected to be better at it (knowing weak points, setting up a good shot, waiting for the target to reach the right range) than the part-timers. In part this is covered by the +2HA/* for AT units, but they still need a bit of a boost to make them a serious choice in the game.

[Yrfin]

- What is the use of the initiative?
- That 76.2 mm was the same one used by the T-34 and the Kv-1?

- Shoot first. Ask questions later
- Nope. It was redesign.

Russian Tank cannons.jpg (78.93 KiB) Viewed 3728 times

[lennis29]

There's a reasonable case for allowing AT units slightly better HA than the equivalent tank gun. Firstly, the limited supplies of tungsten cored APCR (or HVAP for the US guns) was preferentially issued to specialised AT units, so they should be more effectivein the AT role. Secondly because while tank gunners did fire at tanks, this was one thing they did along with other jobs such as scouting, blowing up pillboxes, machine gunning soft targets etc, the AT gunners trained specifically to shoot at tanks, so should be expected to be better at it (knowing weak points, setting up a good shot, waiting for the target to reach the right range) than the part-timers. In part this is covered by the +2HA/* for AT units, but they still need a bit of a boost to make them a serious choice in the game.

The solution for AT is a 25% reduction in their original value.

[lennis29]

ajajjajaja the problem with us is that we want the game to be as real as possible and with the Germans, we must calculate in the game data the negative factors that the country went through in the quality of production, such as the lack of ammunition, fuel, mechanical failures due to desperation, etc, etc, then all that is calculated in the Ini, SA, HA, GD, Ammo, CD.

For example, I want to understand why the Pz II has 2 SA, when it should be 4 to 5.
Because the SturmPanzer I has a Range 3, when it should be 2.
- Pak 50mm with 13 HA and Pak 75mm with 14 HA
And so I see many details, but I imagine that the game manufacturers have their reasons to give stability to the engine and the rules of the game.

[lennis29]

Another idea to make common units feasible is the following.
- modify the rule file.
- By increasing the value of the units with a lower number of manufacture and decreasing the value of the elite replacements, this can compensate for the losses, or leave everything the same and only reduce approximately 25% to the cost of the most common units, such as the StuG III, Pz IV, among other units.

[captainjack]

Changes I made that made AT in general a lot more attractive without breaking game balance were +2 initiative across the board, and adding a switch to overwatch mode.
The ini increase was because even experienced heavy AT was firing second when defending, which seemed counter to pretty much every theory and personal report I'd read.
The overwatch mode is a switch to artillery type while retaining the AT unit combat stats but with move 1 and ROF 80%. So the AT unit now sits next to or behind the front line watching for (armoured) trouble and firing in support. Suddenly Marders and Nashorn become useful, especially against medium tanks, even though you lose the +2HA/" experience bonus. They are also useful for softening up bunkers and for removing entrenchment, which is reasonably historical.
Early use is encouraged by giving 37mm pak and the French 25mm 2 move as they were very mobile compared with other AT guns (very annoying when you forget and get jumped by onr) and allowing portees to switch to dismounted AT but with slightly boosted defence stats (based on reports of NZ AT units in the desert where they dismounted and dug in where possible, but fought mounted where circumstances and ground were against them).
In a perfect world, I'd want to see towed AT entreching as fast as infantry, since entrenchment rates are hard coded, +1 or +1.5 def/" would be a good second. When
I've tried adapting the experience table, I unfortunately ended up with 0/* experience bonus for some reason so tried alternative options.
And finally (it was going to be a short post...). I added SE AT units for germany - currently exluding the stugs which were already useful. I might give US SE AT units next time I play.