Russian FT tanks.

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,632
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
I am building up a hoard of Russian FT tanks. From suppliers like MMP, AH, CH, LCP, HOB and of course BFP. I notice that most producers give the tanks an AP depletion number - but this is absent in the OtOv2 counters. It is not mentioned in the vehicle notes either. Is this how it was intended (that the OtOv2 tanks have unlimited AP)?
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Yes, that is the intention.

The various T-34 FT variants had the fuel and pressure tank in the bow gunner's position and carried a full MA ammo load. To be honest when Chas pointed out that, I was quite surprised at that but not only found strong indications in web searches but I already had that information in a T-34 book I bought years ago "T-34 Mythical Weapon" by Robert Michulec and Miroslaw Zientarzewshi. I clearly had not taken that information in fully.

As to who fired the FT? Possibly the driver but more likely the loader. Without the BMG gunner's seat, the loader could crouch down and fire it. There was often a 5th crew member but from what information was available he/she was responsible for filling/maintaining the fuel and pressure tanks and usually not taken into battle.

As a result the T-34 FT variants have their CS# reduced by 1 and some their RoF by 1, m41 [0]-> No IF, m43 [1] -> [0]. The T-34/85 does have it's CS# reduced but not it's RoF. RoF reflects not just how fast a MA can be loaded, but how fast targets and fall of shot can be spotted. Having a commander not overburdened by gunnery duties in my opinion is more important than whether the loader has to squat for 5-15 seconds to aim the FT within a 120-150 second turn. Anyway with so much ammo literally stored under the turret crew's feet, he/she should be well used to squatting and other turret gymnastics.

The various KV-8 variants carried either 92 (KV-8) or 114 (KV-8S) 45mm rounds, just from memory. That's way, way above the 36 round breakpoint between having a circled B# and not. So at that number of rounds, whatever about APCR, AP and HE should be unlimited in ASL terms.

The KV-8's had tanks were fitted in the turret, so making the turret crowded. So that suggested reducing the RoF from [2] (possibly) or [1] (likely) to [0], but the small size of the rounds meant I recommended not going as far as No IF.

While design decisions are always going to be compromises within the limits that established by what is done for other vehicles and are not going to be perfect, I believe the new values are a better reflection of the historical vehicles within the ASL universe. Remember that the original Soviet vehicles were parametrised some 40 years ago and designers did not have access to more detailed and accurate information released post cold war.
 

Chas

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,794
Country
llUnited States
We put a significant amount of effort into getting this as "correct" as we could with information available.
Yes, they have full AP as their basic load did not change with the FT.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The observant might also note some availability dates for AFV clash with previous ASL offerings. At the start of Chas's and my discussions both of us were making stabs in the air about when the M4A2(L), M4A2(76), etc were available. I got lucky with web searches and found pages that indicated when (sub-)models were manufactured or LL shipped and issued. After that we discussed things like how long it might take between being issued and actually seeing service. Lots of, hopefully intelligent, guessing on our part and ended up with the availability dates and rarity factors you see.

We also had a fair bit of discussion about LL special ammo or fittings like US WP, British APDS and sD vs sM. Even more guesses and "seems right".

In the end while some dates and availability are open for discussion, I strongly believe that what we did uncover is better than what was previously accepted within the ASL universe. Not perfect, but better.

Given the nature of finding tit-bits of information by either of us and the resultant upsetting of parameter apple carts, Chas showed great patience, especially given that he not only had to deal with me but all the scenario designers, map drawers and play testers.

As an aside, during my research I discovered that the batch of M4A2(L) that the USMC got was "stolen" from a USSR destined batch and to compensate more M4A2(76) were allocated (the familiar BV Shermans).
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,632
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
The FT tanks released by LCP in their Konigsberg module have the OT-34M43 and the OT-34/85 with a X10 for both of them. They also have limited AP and and the T34M43 variant has APCR available from '42 when the tank would not in production yet. Black CS# too.

They are nice counters but I prefer the exactness of the BFP ones.
 

Chas

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
1,794
Country
llUnited States
To make it clear, I don't want this discussion to come off as throwing shade on anyone. Paul and I thoroughly researched and we both knew some stuff would be questioned.
Although Paul is mentioned in the credits, this is a great spot for me to publicly thank him, recognize, and commend the great work he did assisting with the design process.
With a lot of the AFVs in ASL a lot of assumptions were (read had) to be made with limited information long ago, design for effect, etc. Some of the FT stuff was done generically long ago and then others followed the same data, which is what we initially did in the first OtO.

Anticipate more of some of this coming in the future :)
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I whole heartedly agree with Chas that the original BV designers did the best they could with what they could research nearly a decade before the opening of the former USSR. Even many of my revered tank books written before the '90s have inaccuracies or omissions that have been corrected in subsequent books. That fact/limitation can't be emphasised enough.

We did some crazy stuff like produce a table of FT fuel tank volumes vs existing ASL FT X# numbers to better assign the X# for the included vehicles. For me it also hit me like a brick the limitations of the existing B#/X# system, but at least what we did produce is consistent with that system. I'd almost forgotten about that episode.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The FT tanks released by LCP in their Konigsberg module have the OT-34M43 and the OT-34/85 with a X10 for both of them. They also have limited AP and and the T34M43 variant has APCR available from '42 when the tank would not in production yet. Black CS# too.

They are nice counters but I prefer the exactness of the BFP ones.
I have to qualify the above a little. The wartime Soviets usually only differentiated much between the original (slab) and hexagonal (hex-nut) versions of the T-34 with 76mm gun. Changes in construction were introduced continuously in factories. Post war there was some rough attempt to categorise the major changes:
  • m1940: Slab turret with the somewhat inconsistent L-11 gun.
  • m1941: Slab turret with the improved F-34 gun, used in all 76mm T-34 thereafter.
  • m1942: Roomier hex-nut turret.
  • m1943: Hex-nut turret with cupola.
The ASL m43 represents both the m1942 and m1943. The ASL availability date for the m43 is 10/42 when in fact German photos of KOed m1942s date from early July '42. So shift the availability and rarity chart dates back by 3 months. The "ASL m43" was available in mid '42, few at first but fairly common by the end of '42. Approval of the hex-nut turret was officially 1-July-1942, but like the replacement of the L-11 by the F-34 gun, was likely a retrospective formal approval of a successful change.

The FT T-34 were first produced from the middle of '42 at Krasnoye Sturovovo No 112 using the ATO-41 FT, later replaced by the improved ATO-42 and finally in Spring '43 by the ATO-43. Both slab (m41) and hex-nut (m43) versions were produced, it mattered little which turret type, just what was available.

As for using official or LFT counters vs BFP ones, I suggest using what the scenario card uses as play-testing would have been done with them. Designing your own scenario is another matter and I would strongly suggest using BFP values (either BFP counters or others but SSRed to BFP values) for better historical accuracy.

Availability dates from the same T-34 book I mentioned in a previous post.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,632
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
The main reason I would not use the LCP counters is because of the FT X10 number. It is apparent that the later vehicular FTs had far great capacity than an infantry FT which is also a X10.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The X# is a problem. It's more to do with lack of granularity with a 2D system than designer's intentions. X12 gives an expected average number of 36 shots, X11 gives 12 shots and X10 gives 6 shots. The only X12 is the Croc, most other vehicular FT are X11 with a few X10s. While in comparison with other vehicles the X10-12 range might be justified, well sort of, in comparison with an infantry FT a X10 is ridiculous. So I have to agree with you there.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I´ve always thought that FT malf has to be based on rolled below a number and not above.. I mean 4 or less in place of 10+. This gives some effect but limited effect, specially to the infantry FT, whose number if using this sistem, is KIA number in 24 column. But I´m not a Scenario designer..
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I´ve always thought that FT malf has to be based on rolled below a number and not above.. I mean 4 or less in place of 10+. This gives some effect but limited effect, specially to the infantry FT, whose number if using this sistem, is KIA number in 24 column. But I´m not a Scenario designer..
OK, I've read this 4 times now, and I still can't make sense of it.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,632
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
OK, I've read this 4 times now, and I still can't make sense of it.
He means that the FT should break on a DR of 4 or less, instead of on a DR of 10 or more. So the better you roll the more chance of the FT breaking.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I'm very much in the low DR is success and high DR is breaking camp, ditto for RoF. To me a success means you likely got your target, possibly with your first "squirt" or two. An unsuccessful DR means you wasted all your squirts, so more likely depleted your supply.

For RoF a low TH DR means your gunner has had his coffee this morning, hit the target and might have time to service another target.
 

stuh42asl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
957
Reaction score
633
Location
ontario
Country
llCanada
Anytime I watched videos of the flame tanks, it seems aiming is more about hosing a target, could be a lot of factors in accuracy versus amount of fuel. Even a mild crosswind could make aiming tougher, and waste more fuel. Also the fuel tanks could be the culprit. did the technicians refueling the FT tanks fill to the correct pressure, was the mix correct. Also it could be the crew themselves, you are effectively in a rolling bomb, except if you are hit you chance of survival is about the same as winning the tri-state lottery. You have to get close to a target to hit it.......an what does that target have to hit back with, German infantry had PSK, PF as did the Americans, Brit had Piats so , how brave is your crew, especially if in combat for a while...
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
Is a game mechanism to ensure a minimum FT use and to avoid ilimited excepcional use.. FT SW is an small weapon with a low fuel charge.. so a way to limit the amount of damage on any game.. Once it get a KIA the fuel is out.. at the same time FT is a powerful weapon with fuel enough to have damage. So no Breakdown before any positive result-a KIA.. a KIA represent a lot of fuel used againts this specific target.. Only a game mechanism easy to use. I’ve played scenarios with no use at all and also with a KIA every roll.. I think is a powerful and particular SW asking for a different way to control the use in the game..
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,200
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
Once it get a KIA the fuel is out.. at the same time FT is a powerful weapon with fuel enough to have damage. So no Breakdown before any positive result-a KIA.. a KIA represent a lot of fuel used againts this specific target.
This is an interesting proposal, particularly with regards to man-portable flamethrowers. I would imagine that obtaining a 2 or even a 1KIA result (i.e., incinerating approx. 5 to 12 or more soldiers in ASL terms) would require a significant amount of fuel. I don't have enough knowledge regarding the capabilities of the various nation's man portable flame weapons to be definitive about this matter, although the 'KIA and the weapon is expended' idea could have some merit. I wouldn't expect this proposal to be realistic for vehicular flame weapons however.
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
4,285
Reaction score
337
Location
Cadiz
First name
Miguel
Country
llSpain
I wouldn't expect this proposal to be realistic for vehicular flame weapons however.
If number is a X10+ is just the same.. No use or many uses for a 32/24FP weapon with no TEM is just a lot of things depending on each DR with this weapon… So the idea of limited low Rolls and the need of some Good rolls in every scenario..

I particulary see the same problem with PSK or even BAZ. A 4 or less for PSK is meaning they carry some ammo, but surely not enough to kill every enemy AFV on the scenario.. Same effect that FT vs infantry vs american AFVs because its high to kill#.

Heresy surely.. but I personally think is a good SSR for some tourney scenarios. Not important if you have 10FTs and 10PSKs but IMO very important if you have one or two of each weapon..
 
Last edited:
Top