PaK 98/37

[Juan SantaX]

From the web.... Maybe its just a game mechanic to make thos gun worse that purpose built ATG....

Ammunition used typically included captured French HE-rounds, captured Polish AP-rounds and German made HEAT-rounds, however using AP-rounds was not favoured and HEAT was the main ammunition type in antitank use with German troops. Reason for this was quite simple: The gun was quite unstable and recoil with AP-rounds was so fearsome that the Germans nicknamed this gun type as "Mustang". This gun was introduced to German troops in November of 1941 and in years 1941 - 1942 some 700 guns of this type were....

.... while 75 psa - Vj4 had new Finnish-manufactured APC-T (armor piercing capped tracer) projectile with 4 second tracer. However firing of "75 psa - Vj4" was recommended for extreme emergency only - gun carriage of 75 PstK/97-38 was not strong enough to endure lot of shooting with this ammunition....

 

[Juan SantaX]

9

 

[Juan SantaX]

Here with the previous photos, we can see what Phillipe pointed. I think it's the brst reason so far...

 

[Actionjick]

Sure. Totally on board with that. But at some point there's design fudge factor. How exact can a/the game be?

Good point. Also have to consider that errors were bound to occur with the large increase in the number of vehicles and ordnance in the Armories compared to SL. Errors or assumptions in SL probably carried over into ASL also.

Looking at the excellent photos that were provided there doesn't seem to be a great difference in size. There was a thread a while back questioning the size modifiers of a couple tanks that in reality were close to the same size but had different target size. I can't recall the thread but one opinion was that there has to be a cut off at some point between sizes. True but not a very satisfactory answer for those interested in historical accuracy.

 

[Actionjick]

Good point. Also have to consider that errors were bound to occur with the large increase in the number of vehicles and ordnance in the Armories compared to SL. Errors or assumptions in SL probably carried over into ASL also.

Looking at the excellent photos that were provided there doesn't seem to be a great difference in size. There was a thread a while back questioning the size modifiers of a couple tanks that in reality were close to the same size but had different target size. I can't recall the thread but one opinion was that there has to be a cut off at some point between sizes. True but not a very satisfactory answer for those interested in historical accuracy.

The thread was " M3 Stuart normal size but M3A1 small ".

 

[Gordon]

And http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/why-is-a-sherman-a-1-target-but-a-jagdpanther-is-not.158895/ referenced in the Stuart thread.

 

[Barking Monkey]

Thanks for starting this thread, Juan. Although the focus of discussion has been on the size modifier, I think the manhandling numbers deserve a bit of reflection. 235 kg is quite a difference between the pak 40 and the 97/38 - enough that I'd have thought it would warrant a difference in M# absent any other considerations, although I'll admit I don't have a clue what the scale for establishing the manhandling number gradient looks like.

On the other hand, looking at the photos you posted the carriage for the pak 40 is clearly higher and has larger wheels than the one used with the 97/38 and the pak 38. I'm wondering if the designers thought the extra ground clearance from the higher axle and the mechanical advantage from the larger wheels offset the increased weight?

This is partly of interest to me since I've always had a small and perverse wish to see the Soviet 76m1943 regimental gun take counter form - it might be the most produced gun not to have it's own counter in the game system. It's a reasonable guess it's always been left out since it's redundant with the 76PPobr27 regimental gun. (It's the same weapon shifted onto the carriage of a 45mm ATG.) It was, however, significantly lighter (around 400 lbs I think) and the one difference with the obr27 would presumably be a higher m#. If the same rationale (higher ground clearance, bigger wheels for pushing on the heavier weapon) is applied to these guns though, maybe the m# wouldn't be higher after all...
(Probably academic at this point - the last, best chance for this weapon to get a belated appearance as a counter was probably KTFW and it didn't show up there.)

 

[Actionjick]

Thanks for starting this thread, Juan. Although the focus of discussion has been on the size modifier, I think the manhandling numbers deserve a bit of reflection. 235 kg is quite a difference between the pak 40 and the 97/38 - enough that I'd have thought it would warrant a difference in M# absent any other considerations, although I'll admit I don't have a clue what the scale for establishing the manhandling number gradient looks like.

On the other hand, looking at the photos you posted the carriage for the pak 40 is clearly higher and has larger wheels than the one used with the 97/38 and the pak 38. I'm wondering if the designers thought the extra ground clearance from the higher axle and the mechanical advantage from the larger wheels offset the increased weight?

This is partly of interest to me since I've always had a small and perverse wish to see the Soviet 76m1943 regimental gun take counter form - it might be the most produced gun not to have it's own counter in the game system. It's a reasonable guess it's always been left out since it's redundant with the 76PPobr27 regimental gun. (It's the same weapon shifted onto the carriage of a 45mm ATG.) It was, however, significantly lighter (around 400 lbs I think) and the one difference with the obr27 would presumably be a higher m#. If the same rationale (higher ground clearance, bigger wheels for pushing on the heavier weapon) is applied to these guns though, maybe the m# wouldn't be higher after all...
(Probably academic at this point - the last, best chance for this weapon to get a belated appearance as a counter was probably KTFW and it didn't show up there.)

With the modern ASL player's insatiable demand for more counters and scenarios your wish will probably become a reality.

 

[footsteps]

(Probably academic at this point - the last, best chance for this weapon to get a belated appearance as a counter was probably KTFW and it didn't show up there.)

With the modern ASL player's insatiable demand for more counters and scenarios your wish will probably become a reality.

Like this?

 

[Barking Monkey]

Like this?

View attachment 18145 View attachment 18146

Yayyy!

 

[footsteps]

Yayyy!

"Need" anything else????

 

[Barking Monkey]

"Need" anything else????

Oh, this is just my "wants" category - most of my "needs" are in the system counter arena - I'm frequently running out of SMOKE counters (both the white on the reverse side and the grey), I could definitely use a few more 'bridge/bridge destroyed' counters (bonus points if you can find an unobtrusive way of indicating material of construction), I'd like to have counters for the Scenario Aid Card that indicate the state of rice paddies for a scenario/mission, a few more 'wall advantage' counters would probably be welcome...

 

[footsteps]

Oh, this is just my "wants" category - most of my "needs" are in the system counter arena - I'm frequently running out of SMOKE counters (both the white on the reverse side and the grey), I could definitely use a few more 'bridge/bridge destroyed' counters (bonus points if you can find an unobtrusive way of indicating material of construction), I'd like to have counters for the Scenario Aid Card that indicate the state of rice paddies for a scenario/mission, a few more 'wall advantage' counters would probably be welcome...

I don't have SMOKE, but I do have Smoke/WP...



and Wall Advantage...



among other things.

 

[AdrianE]

How about no smoke and no wp on the same counter.

 

[tailesin]

Sorry to resurrect this.

The Pak 98/38 is clearly misunderstood and misrepresented.
It should be: LOW TARGET, M9, Unlimited HEAT, and I would give a Basic to Kill of at least 14-15 (Hl a/B) and finally no B11 (as far as I know) there is no reason.

-- Height was the same than the Pak 38 (50L) and same crew.
-- Weight was in between the PAK 38 (50L) and the Pak40 (75L)
-- It was specificaly created as an Antitank gun to take profit of the capabilities of the "not so new" HEAT ammunition: 70/75mm penetration at any range (Hl C 100mm). wich was better than the PAK 38. It was the antitank ammunition provided and used in combat. Of course it's HE ammunition was also much better than PAK 38.

It had drawbacks too:
-- HEAT ammo of the time needed relative low velocities to be effective so it was not the best to hit a moving tank at long range. Better to shoot at less than 500m. In ASL terms it has no effect. But it could be implemented.
-- From the reports on the field it was difficult to observe the effects of own fire, and not always the round hit at the best angle to full effect so more shoots were ussually expended per target than with a high velocity energy gun. This could be represented with a ROF -1 when firing HEAT for example.

By the way HEAT was also used by late war Panzer IV (75L), StugIII (75L), etc as a way to economise panzergranates 39 when firing at less well protected targets and as substitute of HE.... Not necessary in ASL.

 

[Chas]

One reason could be different designers. There is also no singular oversight on counters per se.

The second reason could be borderline metrics. Paul W and I worked a lot on this stuff together. Here is the best example. We designed the T-26 twin turrets with a Normal TH size. MMP then designed them with a Small Target Size. Neither is incorrect. I have metrics that help me determine along with design for effect. The best way to say it is this. A small target is <=10. A normal target is >= 10. The T-26 twin turrets +10. So it is either a very large small target, or a very small normal target. As I stated neither is more wrong or correct than the other.

 

[Actionjick]

One reason could be different designers. There is also no singular oversight on counters per se.

The second reason could be borderline metrics. Paul W and I worked a lot on this stuff together. Here is the best example. We designed the T-26 twin turrets with a Normal TH size. MMP then designed them with a Small Target Size. Neither is incorrect. I have metrics that help me determine along with design for effect. The best way to say it is this. A small target is <=10. A normal target is >= 10. The T-26 twin turrets +10. So it is either a very large small target, or a very small normal target. As I stated neither is more wrong or correct than the other.

We loved those things but we had to DYO to get them. What a monstrosity! Leave battleships to the Navy.

 

[Blaze]

How about no smoke and no wp on the same counter.

At least 20 of them. I'm going to buy stock in Raaco.