Wishlist: Thought or two of HE penetrators and game mechanics

[SaS TrooP]

I dont want to make it long though.

As of ongoing Ukraine, it is good to read guys such as ChrisO, I will be reffering for example to this writing:
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/stat...68919245737991

Long story short - he claims that even American tests in the '90s included a lot of artillery damage and kills. Artillery fire massively rips optics, someties tracks, and fragments often penetrate side/top armor rather easily.

Thought number 2:
War in Georgian in 2008 is nicely covered on many fields. One of (few) successful Georgian actions was the ambush against the HQ column of 58th Army. During this ambush Georgian SF used 5,56mm weapons (mostly M4 family and Minimi) with some 5,45mm weapons against BTR-70 units. There were several wrecks. Russian casualties were inflicted - against the vehicles - with said 5,56mm weapons. In other words, 5,56mm went through BTR side armor and spalled inside.


Both examples above lead me to certain thought: I believe armoured vehicles in SPWW2/SPMBT are way over-resistant to high explosive munitions of all sorts.

I am probably not the only one playing with tanks happily driving into masses of weakly armed infantry (few RPGs) and ripping them point blank with IFVs. Who else does it? I believe quite a people.

My recomendations and questions what could be done:

1) PENETRATIONS:
a) INCREASE HE PEN OF ALL 5,56 OR 5,45 OR COMPARABLE WEAPONS TO 1:0 (CURRENTLY 0:0)
b) INCREASE HE PEN OF ALL 7,62 OR COMPARABLE WEAPONS TO 2:0 (CURRENTLY 0:0 except of british SLR with 1:1)
c) INCREASE HE PEN OF ALL 12,7MM OR COMPARABLE WEAPONS TO 3:0 (currently mostly 1:0 or 2:0)
Expected results: massive small arms fire should now be actually dangerous to lightly armoured vehicles. M113s driving right into ****ton of Vietnamese should now (correctly) result in potential loss of the vehicles - unless enemy is so disorganized it cannot put up any meaningful resistance)

2) PENETRATIONS VOL. 2 - DRASTICALLY INCREASE HE PENETRATION OF ALL ARTILLERY, FROM MORTARS TO SIEGE UNITS (AT LEAST TWICE, IF NOT MORE)
Expected results: noticeably increase damage to armoured vehicles from both direct and indirect hits. As result it will be made available to actually destroy enemy armoured column, not just partly supress it

3) MOBILITY KILL - NOTICEABLY INCREASE CHANCE OF MOBILITY KILLS. At this point it is often quite "reasonable" in terms of this game to happily keep tanks in the artillery strike zone. If the crew is experienced, You will shake any suppression, totally wont get any damage, and maaaaybe you will get mobility kill, what still allows to use such vehicle in combat if its placement provides good vantage.

4) QUESTION: IS IT POSSIBLE FROM THE GAME ENGINE PERSPECITVE TO INTRODUCE SO CALLED "MISSION KILL"? - note that it is possible to change certain statistics mid-game, like radar shutdowns against SEADs or knock-downs. Would it be possible to implement eg. optics loss, or comms loss? If so, it would greatly endanger heavioer vehicles against such hits. It would also make them more prone to damage in urban warfare. Note how Hamas and Hizballah trained to hit Merkava weakspots with small arms fire to disable cameras or optics...


Leaving thread for discussion.

[Imp]

You probably want to do warhead size not HE penetration levels especially if they are zero.
If a weapon does not have a HE penetration level it does not target armour but give it one & I think it will.

[SaS TrooP]

Like infantry firing at APC with rifles on 500 metres? Yea, that would be bad. But warhead will probably complicate other mechanics?

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by SaS TrooP

Both examples above lead me to certain thought: I believe armoured vehicles in SPWW2/SPMBT are way over-resistant...

Well, yes.

First, the game engine could be improved if there was something in between 0 and 1 for armor for vehicles; as the jump from 0mm (canvas sides) to 10mm (minimum armor level in game) is pretty big.

The only way you could do this without breaking the game database would be to make 255 armor represent 5mm (0.5cm) armor. I think it's possible, as Challenger II (Unit 028 UK) has a maximum of 185 TF for HEAT; so there's room.

Second, the game engine was designed back in the 1980s to 1990s by Grigsby using data that was easily available to wargamers back when Grigsby started programming wargames.

(I said 1980s because if you squint and look at some of Grigsby's earlier SSI games such as Typhoon of Steel, you can see the same unit database values in SP1, etc)

Also, at that time in combat vehicle design, people were happy with "resistant" vehicles, and the game engine mechanics that Grigsby went with his original designs represent that -- the mechanics work great for "long range" WWII combat or Cold War European Combat where you get at least 300m or so range to targets.

It does kind of break down in "extreme danger close" scenarios such as Vietnam jungle ambushes -- 5.56mm SS109 in theory can penetrate:

15mm of Aluminum armor @ 300m
5mm of 500 MPa Steel Plate @ 370~m
3mm of 860 MPa Steel Plate @ 540m
3.5mm Mild Steel (NATO Plate) @ 600~m

This makes it possible to penetrate light armored vehicles if you're close enough (100m or closer) with an automatic weapon -- it's not for nothing that NATO has steadily refined armor ratings with STANAG levels and adding multi-hit requirements for "lesser than tank" combat vehicles from experience in Iraq.

But in the end, the problem is scale. Steel Panthers is about company/battalion level combat at 'normal' combat ranges; and what we have works well here, with a bit of creakiness around edge cases such as Vietnam Jungle combat and Iraq vehicle ambushes.

A more detailed small arms penetration model and a different scale (something like X-COM: UFO Defense or Fallout:Tactics) based around individual soldiers would work better for simulating Vietnam/Iraq Close Combat....but then it wouldn't be Steel Panthers.

[lansoar]

I've noted that Turret hits, particularly Front turret hits (if the AoA allows) tend to absorb alot of fire, direct and indirect. A "quick and dirty" fix to make arty more dangerous might be to increase the chance of hull hits, particularly side hull. Problem with the hex model is that frontal arc tends to absorb alot. Either in conjunction or as a separate approach, maybe a small tweak to increase likelihood of mobility kill with side hits.

A note of caution. Such a thing was attempted with early versions of SP:WAW under the guise of "armor quality"

It was a disaster and was discarded eventually. Pz-35's were knocking out T-34's frontally....at range (vs. point blank). Turrets with less angled armor were sieved by shell fire. The idea of cumulative effect of multiple kinetic and/or HEAT hits is enticing....but could easily lead to situations where armor no longer matters.

[Suhiir]

The main issue (from my perspective) is the duration and intensity of the indirect fire attack.

Tanks can generally drive thru a moderate barrage with little damage, but would be shredded if they sat stationary (in say a defensive position) during a heavy longer duration barrage.

Same applies to infantry. Caught in non-fortified positions they're dead meat to most any barrage. A simple fox hole dramatically improves suitability. And WWI style trenches and bomb proof dugouts make them essentially immune.

So you can't really generalize to far, it's all situational.

[lansoar]

Anyone who's played with Arty set to higher than 100% in the preferences have an opinion to weigh in with?

[SaS TrooP]

I believe artillery efficiency increase increases "chance to hit" rather than its penetration values. Chance to hit is one thing - it should be limited when in serious coiver etc. I mention only that the factualy penetration of heavier artillery shells seems to be way stronger than this game represents.

But it also surprised others. What I quoted up there is surprise that side armor cannot resist 152mm fragmentation. We kinda expected before that war, that it could.

[Suhiir]

I recall in about 1977 an 8in shell landed about 20m from an M60 tank that was someplace it shouldn't have been.

According to what I heard it ruptured the crews eardrums but otherwise they and the tank were still fully operational.

Now that was one shell not a barrage, and with artillery luck is ALWAYS a factor. The point is that while not invulnerable a tank isn't particularly vulnerable either.

As a once-upon-a-time forward observer myself I tend to think of tanks in the same category as dug in infantry. Yes they're a target, but it's going to take a lot of time and ammo to do any significant damage.