• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Some questions for Volcano Man
06-10-2006, 11:30 AM,
#10
RE: Some questions for Volcano Man
Another thought on the impact the new lower K43 artillery indirect fire hard attack values may have.

One of the things I always assumed for the stock unit unit values was that the artillery hard attack values represented not necessarily the penetrative power of the artillery round, but the concussive impact of the round on vehicle and weapons systems and the impact on personnel.

Assuming that, when an armored vehicle is "lost" in PzC, it doesn't necessarily represent a tank with its turret blown off by a penetrating round, but can include a vehicle which is disabled or made (even temporarily) unavailable for service in some way, artillery should have some impact. For example:

- a high angle round hitting a tank doesn't penetrate the hull armor, but damages electrical, fuel or weapons systems either through kinetic or concussive disruption, or by scoring a lucky hit on the tracks or some other weak spot

- a tank crew (and you read this time and again in the literature) will sometimes, upon taking one or several direct or close hits from large caliber artillery, suffer a morale loss that results in retreat or even abandonment of the vehicle (a D or fatigue result or an outright combat loss in PzC terms). A concussive impact could also, in the right circumstances and with a large enough shell, kill or disable the crew despite the armor.

- a tank crew that remains "buttoned up" for long periods, whether under enemy artillery fire or for other reasons, will over time suffer a decrease in effectiveness, and this was especially true in WW2 style vehicles which had few creature comforts. In PzC terms, I have always seen this as represented by a buildup in fatigue for tank units sitting out under bombardment for lengthy periods of time. Even with few or no vehicles outright being lost, this seems very historical to me. Commanders simply did not let their troops sit under artillery bombardment if they could avoid it, no matter the armor protection, due to the effect of prolonged bombardment on the human psyche and physique.

With the lower hard attack values, I think artillery may have become much less significant a threat to enemy armor than it was historically. Again, this is assuming that losses, disruptions and fatigue under the PzC system don't necessarily correlate to the artillery round being able to penetrate the AFV turret or hull armor.

Again, I offer these comments in a constructive way. As far as I can tell, you are unique among the folks who play this game for the dedication and research you put into the wonderful alternative scenarios and unit art you create. Your work shows both thoughtfulness and a sincere love of wargaming. I salute that wholeheartedly and make these comments only because I think you value getting straight opinions on the work you do.

Cheers.

Quote this message in a reply


Messages In This Thread
Some questions for Volcano Man - by Elxaime - 06-08-2006, 02:11 PM
RE: Some questions for Volcano Man - by Elxaime - 06-09-2006, 03:31 PM
RE: Some questions for Volcano Man - by TET2 - 06-10-2006, 07:54 AM
RE: Some questions for Volcano Man - by TET2 - 06-10-2006, 07:58 AM
RE: Some questions for Volcano Man - by Elxaime - 06-10-2006, 11:01 AM
RE: Some questions for Volcano Man - by Elxaime - 06-10-2006, 11:30 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)