Tank Killing and ASL

[Pitman]

This week I was reading some studies done shortly after the war of tank engagements in western Europe in World War II. If I remember correctly, one looked at the British in Normandy and the other looked at the 3rd and 4th U.S. armored divisions. They examined a total of hundreds of engagements and analyzed them for a number of different factors.

Both studies were quite interesting, but one thing that struck me--vis a vis ASL--was the range at which most tanks were killed.

In both studies, the average range at which tanks were destroyed was far greater than the average range that tanks in ASL seem to be destroyed. One study had an average range of 1100 yards or so. Another study broke tank kills into "closed" terrain and "open" terrain. The average for the former was still like 400 yards.

In ASL terms, that's 8-10 hexes. In non-open terrain.

How many tanks have you ever killed at 22-30 hex range? Personally, with around 400 scenarios or so under my belt, I am not actually sure I have killed a single tank at that range. Maybe one, somewhere.

 

[Canadian Dude]

This week I was reading some studies done shortly after the war of tank engagements in western Europe in World War II. If I remember correctly, one looked at the British in Normandy and the other looked at the 3rd and 4th U.S. armored divisions. They examined a total of hundreds of engagements and analyzed them for a number of different factors.

Both studies were quite interesting, but one thing that struck me--vis a vis ASL--was the range at which most tanks were killed.

In both studies, the average range at which tanks were destroyed was far greater than the average range that tanks in ASL seem to be destroyed. One study had an average range of 1100 yards or so. Another study broke tank kills into "closed" terrain and "open" terrain. The average for the former was still like 400 yards.

In ASL terms, that's 8-10 hexes. In non-open terrain.

How many tanks have you ever killed at 22-30 hex range? Personally, with around 400 scenarios or so under my belt, I am not actually sure I have killed a single tank at that range. Maybe one, somewhere.

Yeah, but me thinks they were crew exposed, which I have yet to see done in ASL (though next time I get some tanks, I mite experiment and run around crew exposed).

 

[Will Fleming]

I agree, but I doubt the designers considered that. Consider the number of scenarios where you enter from off map and are suddenly within relatively close proximity of your opponent. In reality, they would have engaged each other much further off.

I also think the maps have a bit more obstacles in general than the typical battlefield which in turn closes the range.

With 40 meters per hex(?), you would need a lot of boards to reflect those type of ranges resulting in a lot less fun for the players. I think it just makes longer/dull scenarios as you are forced to cover a lot more ground while one side essentially blasts away at you.

 

[Khill]

Both studies were quite interesting, but one thing that struck me--vis a vis ASL--was the range at which most tanks were killed.

In both studies, the average range at which tanks were destroyed was far greater than the average range that tanks in ASL seem to be destroyed. One study had an average range of 1100 yards or so. Another study broke tank kills into "closed" terrain and "open" terrain. The average for the former was still like 400 yards.

Yes, very interesting

How many tanks have you ever killed at 22-30 hex range? Personally, with around 400 scenarios or so under my belt, I am not actually sure I have killed a single tank at that range. Maybe one, somewhere.

I have not played quite that many scenarios, I guess, but a good heap and never even had a shot at those kind of ranges. But I don't care much for desert scenarios. The way most boards are configured those types of ranges rarely have LOS

 

[wrongway149]

I agree, but I doubt the designers considered that. Consider the number of scenarios where you enter from off map and are suddenly within relatively close proximity of your opponent. In reality, they would have engaged each other much further off.

Maybe they did, but that part isn't depicted in the scenario . Some have claimed a lack of realism in ASL scenarios in which the Tiger/Panther tanks aren't outnumbered 3-4:1 in the OBs while in fact they often faced such odds. It is easier if you imagine the action that has taken place prior to the scenario 'snapshot'. The long-range battles are over by the point at which the scenario begins, and the panzers have inflicted enough casualties to even the odds a bit for the close-in part of the engagement.

So ,nothing unrealistic at all. In fact, the game reflects the reality quite well. :smoke:

 

[Will Fleming]

You can always count on Pete for a good perspective on things. Scenarios are just the 'meat' of the engagement and not necessarily the whole thing.

Now that I think about it, that was mentioned on some of the old boxes or in RB right?

 

[Psycho]

does that mean I'm as smart as Pete or he's as dumb as me?

Maybe they did, but that part isn't depicted in the scenario . Some have claimed a lack of realism in ASL scenarios in which the Tiger/Panther tanks aren't outnumbered 3-4:1 in the OBs while in fact they often faced such odds. It is easier if you imagine the action that has taken place prior to the scenario 'snapshot'. The long-range battles are over by the point at which the scenario begins, and the panzers have inflicted enough casualties to even the odds a bit for the close-in part of the engagement.

So ,nothing unrealistic at all. In fact, the game reflects the reality quite well. :smoke:

DAMN YOU SHELLING! I actually thought I might be able to contribute something of substance for once but NOOOOOOOOO! I finished Will's post two before yours and was getting ready to type something about wrecks offboard that happened just before scenario start and lo and behold...

 

[WaterRabbit]

You guys need to play more desert/steppe scenarios. There is nothing better than killing tanks at range 30 or so. IMHO, the problem with too many scenarios that involve vehicles is that they are knife fights. The main advantage of German armor is to be able to kill at long range.

Paw of the Tiger is one of the few scenarios that plays like a real engagement. Tigers on the hill killing lots of Soviet tanks.

 

[Will Fleming]

I have been meaning to play that one since COI.

 

[2 Bit Bill]

You guys need to play more desert/steppe scenarios. There is nothing better than killing tanks at range 30 or so. IMHO, the problem with too many scenarios that involve vehicles is that they are knife fights. The main advantage of German armor is to be able to kill at long range.

Paw of the Tiger is one of the few scenarios that plays like a real engagement. Tigers on the hill killing lots of Soviet tanks.

I agree about some of the Desert & Steppe Scenarios. The small caliber stuff is interesting.

Paw Of The Tiger can be but...
It was one of the choices at an Avaloncon which my opponent wanted to play. I really didn't want to play it, and said I would only play it as the Russians. I had chosen the 2 others and not POTT so he was supposed to play one of those two. After I entered, I finished my movement in blind hexes. I was going to move from blind zones to blind zones until I got close but the first T-34 I moved on turn 2(1 MP in LOS) was hit by the center Tiger with the 8-1 and immobilized but passed his Immobilization TC. It was either in Bounding Fire (if could I have done it from the immobilized crew after it passed the TC, If so I may have done that?) or in the ensuing AFPh ; hazy :smoke: ), I got a Critical Hit and smoked the Tiger. Everybody else moved and hid/swarmed away from the other Tiger which was on the German left(probably on a level 3) and immediately rolled a 12 when he started up. Since it was immobilized and the Level 3s blocked it's LOS to the German right side of the board, I kept everybody moving that way, mowing down what little was left. The FO has to see you to do any damage(and he can with the 150mm) so that means you can see him, "easily" taking him out with concentrated Firepower. The PzIIINs can be hunted without much fear and the Gun and Infantry are fairly nothing. That's just my opinion. :cheeky:

A couple of odd points;
1. I wasn't using Bounding Fire for the shot that had a greater chance of breaking the MA than getting an Improbale/Critical Hit. Had my opponent not immobilized me, I would have not taken the shot.

2. As we were getting ready to pull the pieces, Mike Daniels is sitting next to me, also playing and pulling the pieces to POTT, turns and says to me(as it wasn't really a question); "How can the Germans lose?" :angry: :freak:
Mike, please go away (or someting similar). :halo: He got smoked :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Neat scenario but I think it's very dicey for the Germans.

 

[Carln0130]

This week I was reading some studies done shortly after the war of tank engagements in western Europe in World War II. If I remember correctly, one looked at the British in Normandy and the other looked at the 3rd and 4th U.S. armored divisions. They examined a total of hundreds of engagements and analyzed them for a number of different factors.

Both studies were quite interesting, but one thing that struck me--vis a vis ASL--was the range at which most tanks were killed.

In both studies, the average range at which tanks were destroyed was far greater than the average range that tanks in ASL seem to be destroyed. One study had an average range of 1100 yards or so. Another study broke tank kills into "closed" terrain and "open" terrain. The average for the former was still like 400 yards.

In ASL terms, that's 8-10 hexes. In non-open terrain.

How many tanks have you ever killed at 22-30 hex range? Personally, with around 400 scenarios or so under my belt, I am not actually sure I have killed a single tank at that range. Maybe one, somewhere.

Part of the problem I think also is that the geomorphic boards, compared to most HASL maps, especially in Europe, tend to be pretty claustrophobic. When you look at some of the HASL maps, for instance, take the mist out of a Stumont scenario, and you can start popping things at long range. In true European terrain, it seems that you are in one of two places, in town, or out of town. Most geo maps tend to look a little more like North American suburbs than true European terrain. So that, plus as someone else stated, starting right on each other, at what amounts to point blank range for AFV's seems to do it.
That having been said, you occasionally do get to pop someone at long range in other than desert/steppe, but it sure takes some doing.

 

[Glennbo]

Maybe they did, but that part isn't depicted in the scenario . Some have claimed a lack of realism in ASL scenarios in which the Tiger/Panther tanks aren't outnumbered 3-4:1 in the OBs while in fact they often faced such odds. It is easier if you imagine the action that has taken place prior to the scenario 'snapshot'. The long-range battles are over by the point at which the scenario begins, and the panzers have inflicted enough casualties to even the odds a bit for the close-in part of the engagement.

So ,nothing unrealistic at all. In fact, the game reflects the reality quite well. :smoke:

Excellent point sir! This brilliant post is just one example of why Pete Shelling was voted "Favorite Forum Member", and "Best Scenario Designer".

 

[Corporal Kindel]

I agree about some of the Desert & Steppe Scenarios. The small caliber stuff is interesting.

2. As we were getting ready to pull the pieces, Mike Daniels is sitting next to me, also playing and pulling the pieces to POTT, turns and says to me(as it wasn't really a question); "How can the Germans lose?" :angry: :freak:
Mike, please go away (or someting similar). :halo: He got smoked :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Neat scenario but I think it's very dicey for the Germans.

I also won this one as the Russians. I used basically the same strategy, avoid LOS of German tanks and stay in motion. I was able to CH one of the Tigers with my second or third shot (a couple of close LOSs turned out to be good, he missed though IIRC). My opponent was somehow able to kill a lot of my tanks over the course of the scenario, but I still exited with exactly the number I needed (can't remember what it was now, something like 4 or 5 tanks).

I like this one as the Russians too .. I'll take quantity over quality any day. Didn't the Germans have a HIP Gun in this?

 

[soggycrow]

As has been observed, desert scenarios do involve some long range shots. But I don't see much of it in the European scenarios, east or west. I have yet to see a mapboard, whether geomorphic or historical (and I haven't seen them all) that is a wide open as some of the actual eastern front territory. The area in central Belarus, around Minsk, is a case in point. This area is largely flat with occasional low rolling hills. Sometimes the highest thing around is an overpass. With grain out of season, the sight lines go for miles. You only find trees along streams or sometimes lining major highways. An occasional tree stand left on land not suitable for grain.

It's kind of like being on the second floor of a motel in Wichita. You can see into the next county.:blab:

 

[rdw5150]

"Excellent point sir! This brilliant post is just one example of why Pete Shelling was voted "Favorite Forum Member", and "Best Scenario Designer". "

Agreed an almost perfect description.

Peace

Roger

 

[Tankleader]

This week I was reading some studies done shortly after the war of tank engagements in western Europe in World War II. If I remember correctly, one looked at the British in Normandy and the other looked at the 3rd and 4th U.S. armored divisions. They examined a total of hundreds of engagements and analyzed them for a number of different factors.

Both studies were quite interesting, but one thing that struck me--vis a vis ASL--was the range at which most tanks were killed.

In both studies, the average range at which tanks were destroyed was far greater than the average range that tanks in ASL seem to be destroyed. One study had an average range of 1100 yards or so. Another study broke tank kills into "closed" terrain and "open" terrain. The average for the former was still like 400 yards.

In ASL terms, that's 8-10 hexes. In non-open terrain.

How many tanks have you ever killed at 22-30 hex range? Personally, with around 400 scenarios or so under my belt, I am not actually sure I have killed a single tank at that range. Maybe one, somewhere.

Almost sounds like a "REALSIM", agruement to me. I asked my local club a question of why HEAT rounds are so ineffective in ASL? I got the "Oh My God" a realism question. My background is Armor and Weapons design and their effects. Doing a quick search, I came up with the following information on HEAT ammunitions:

The key to the effectiveness of a HEAT round is the diameter of the warhead. As the penetration continues through the armor, the width of the hole decreases leading to a characteristic "fist to finger" penetration, where the size of the eventual "finger" is based on the size of the original "fist". In general, HEAT rounds can expect to penetrate armor of 150% to 250% of their width, although modern versions claim numbers as high as 700%.

HEAT rounds are less effective if they are spinning, the normal method for giving a shell accuracy. The centrifugal force disperses the jet, so the warhead design needs to be modified for use with rifled guns, or fired from smoothbore weapons. A further problem is that if the warhead is contained inside the barrel, then its diameter is restricted to the caliber of the gun. Increasing the caliber to allow a greater diameter makes the gun heavier. Recoilless rifles using lighter barrels and mounts firing HEAT rounds (e.g. the British WOMBAT or Swedish Carl Gustav) have proven to be effective.

Having looked at data regarding the use of HEAT ammunition during WWII, it shows that when used it was more effective than AP, APCR type rounds, which can be defeated by increasing the armor thickness/slope or material used for armor (like going to Chobham armor on modern vehicles). HEAT rounds can be defeated by using certain types of spaced armor, explosive reactive armor, which weren't used during WWII. So my question is why is it so ineffective compared to APCR, AP.

Tanks
Andy

 

[Xavier 658]

AFVs are not hit that far when playing ASL because ASL was basically designed for infantry, and as such, it focuses on infantry combat and thus, on close distances.

AFVs (like Air Support and other rules) were added later because the original Squad Leader had been so successful that it was needed to extend such a great system. But Armor combat couldn't fit to SL, that's why IMHO the AFVs in ASL are used in a very specific close support role, which was far from being the main purpose of their exsitence...

To answer to your question, I agree with people who says that Desert and Steppe terrain can achieve better AFV "normal" range fire.

Personnaly I might have destoyed some enemy AFVs only in a few scenarios in North Africa and some others in BIG scenarios with huge maps (OVHS CG Game or such).

Cheers;

X

 

[Brian W]

AFVs (like Air Support and other rules) were added later because the original Squad Leader had been so successful that it was needed to extend such a great system.

I am not sure what you are talking about; my copy of Squad Leader introduced tank combat in the third scenario.

 

[SamB]

You guys need to play more desert/steppe scenarios. There is nothing better than killing tanks at range 30 or so. IMHO, the problem with too many scenarios that involve vehicles is that they are knife fights. The main advantage of German armor is to be able to kill at long range.

Try "Half a Chance". Six desert boards. Kills at ranges of 50+ hexes are possible. Wild scenario too...

 

[Xavier 658]

Hi Brian;

I am not sure what you are talking about; my copy of Squad Leader introduced tank combat in the third scenario.

Yes, I know... who hasn't played "Streets of Stalingrad" and all these first SL scenarios...

I wanted to say that the rules were designed to depict infantry combat, not AFV combat. As such, even if in the third SL scenario you can find some AFVs, these come into play just as a support tool.

Up to now, all the rules governing AFVs are aimed at this part of their utilisation: infantry support. That's why usually we just take shots at 10 hexes or less, and never beyond 25 or 30 hexes (which in fact was the average range for effective AFV gun fire).

Have I made it more understandable Brian?

Cheers;

X