Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Contrarius
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:35 pm

Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Contrarius »

Playing early war 1939/40 I’ve found the use of Anti-Tank Rifles to be somewhat confusing. OK, so they weren’t brilliant weapons, and were obsolete by 1941 when a new generation of tanks hit the battlefield. But in 1939/40 they were often the only AT weapon available and could, in the right circumstances, knock out pretty well any tank on the battlefield, excepting the British Matilda II and French heavies.

Now looking at the weapons available in 1939 and 40 (in particular the smaller, man-portable AT rifles, the PzB 38 and 39, Boys, and Polish ‘Uruguay’):
In the main rules and early war lists these are given an AP strike of 3 and hit with full effect over the full length/breadth of the table. In the Blitzkrieg Handbook this is reduced to AP 2 but the range remains unrestricted.

Now, in the specifications for these weapons the effective range is given variously as from 80 yards to 100 metres. This equates to between 24 and 33 inches on the table. So, what do folks think about adjusting the AP strike to 2 above 24” (=80 yards) and 3 below? Alternatively, AP 1 above 24” and 2 below?

These weapons were usually issued to the best marksmen in the platoon and also used for tackling things like pillboxes. Now, per the rules such taskings can only achieved upon burning a Command Initiative from a Senior Leader. What do folks think about adjusting this so that the senior leader’s command is only necessary upon the first activation at a specific target, with activations in subsequent phases possible on a “1” or a Jr Leader activation? A turn end would then require a senior leader activation again.

:ugeek:

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7894
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Personally as the strike dice represents penetration and the effect after that I would rate the heavier AT rifles like the 20mm Japanese and Solthurns and maybe the Soviet 14.5mm at 3 the others at 2

The reports of the Boys performance do not seem to match the heavier ones despite the larger calibre, maybe it was due to lower ROF or ammo difference I am not sure.

Several reports talk about BEF guys throwing their Boys away though this my be more due to the weight.
I have also read a first hand account of a BEF 'forlorn hope' stopping several tanks with his Boys.

User avatar
7dot62mm
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by 7dot62mm »

I believe we should let the CoCulator decide the number of AP dice. That said, I wasn't expecting the huge Lahti AT rifle to clock in at AP 2 only.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7894
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Truscott Trotter »

How does the coculater do that?

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Seret »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:37 am
How does the coculater do that?
Because theoretically the AP value that you set is based purely on penetration stats. You take how many mm of armour it defeats and that's your AP value.

In practice it's not that simple. Published stats can be hugely inconsistent and even when they're based on "controlled" tests those tests are often performed under different conditions. For example, some tests have the target plate angled, some don't. Some consider "penetration" to be when 50% of projectiles penetrated, some when all of them did, etc, etc. Huge can of worms.

User avatar
7dot62mm
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by 7dot62mm »

Seret wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:06 am
In practice it's not that simple. Published stats can be hugely inconsistent and even when they're based on "controlled" tests those tests are often performed under different conditions. For example, some tests have the target plate angled, some don't. Some consider "penetration" to be when 50% of projectiles penetrated, some when all of them did, etc, etc. Huge can of worms.
The accuracy of the published stats is not that much of an issue because the CoCulator itself is vague enough to introduce another can of worms... to quote: "Armour Piercing rating is based on military data and is based on mm of penetration at 250 to 500 yards" ... and ... "Armour sloped to 40 to 50 degrees adds +1 to the armour rating".

So there is a certain amount of fuzziness built-in to the system. Therefore - if you ask me - using what you consider to be the best available data to calculate your AP values will be accurate enough for game purposes.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7894
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Seret wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:06 am
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:37 am
How does the coculater do that?
Because theoretically the AP value that you set is based purely on penetration stats. You take how many mm of armour it defeats and that's your AP value.

In practice it's not that simple. Published stats can be hugely inconsistent and even when they're based on "controlled" tests those tests are often performed under different conditions. For example, some tests have the target plate angled, some don't. Some consider "penetration" to be when 50% of projectiles penetrated, some when all of them did, etc, etc. Huge can of worms.
Exactly the more sites I read on pen stats and various methodologies the more confused and uncertain I got.
I think the best you can do is try and ensure the relative values are correct.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4144
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Seret »

7dot62mm wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:02 am
Therefore - if you ask me - using what you consider to be the best available data to calculate your AP values will be accurate enough for game purposes.
I agree. Understanding what the difference is between the testing standards does help though. You aren't going to get it super accurate, but close enough is close enough.
Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:42 am
Exactly the more sites I read on pen stats and various methodologies the more confused and uncertain I got.
Tell me about it. But don't be discouraged! You're just experiencing the sucky part of the Dunning-Kruger Curve:
Image
I think the best you can do is try and ensure the relative values are correct.
Well yes, but you can't really establish that relativity without some kind of performance data. When a gun is made obsolete and it's replacement comes in should that one rated one point higher? Two? Three?

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7894
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Ha thanks for thats it is true.

I have 43 page pdf (as I am sure many of use do) that compared various published pen stats on AT weapons, but most of the. do not include the different AT rifles as they were obsolete by the time most of these tests were done

User avatar
7dot62mm
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

Post by 7dot62mm »

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:26 am
I have 43 page pdf (as I am sure many of use do) that compared various published pen stats on AT weapons
Is that the John D. Salt document?

Post Reply