Possible Anti-Tank Rifle amendments

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

As I suspect we all would with a tank bearing down on us!

[Truscott Trotter]

Actually it was more like a Sgt Major bearing down on them, if it had been a real Panzer they would have tossed the Boys into the nearest ditch and legged it like any sensible Tommy

[batesmotel34]

Part of the problem with getting AT Rifles right is the basic CoC armour model where the side armour protection is essentially a function of the frontal armour. While the frontal armour of the PzIIIs and PzIVs was increased over time, the hull side armour remained constant at about 30mm until the addition of schuerzen specifically in reaction to the effectiveness of Russian AT rifles in fighting on the Eastern front. While an AT rating of 3 works fairly well against early model III's and IV's, by the time of models such as the later models, the frontal armour has increased enough that Soviet AT rifles are pretty much ineffective against the flanks of the later models and hence you wonder why the Germans bothered to add schuerzen. The rules need a new classification like weak side armour (treat flank shots as normal rear shots), or even better, a separate flank armour rating separate from the frontal.

Chris

[Truscott Trotter]

I agree Chris it would have been better to have separate values but as for keeping it simple your suggestion would work for those like Hetzers etc.