PLASTIC OSTFRONT RULES FOR 1/72 SCALE WARGAMING

CALCULATION OF ANTI-TANK STRIKE VALUES

Anti-tank Direct Fire

Shooting at tanks is a key element in these games. For this reason it should be done quickly and smoothly otherwise the game bogs down.

However, if it is over-simplified then this complex part of the game is no longer a simulation and the important factors in tank combat can be distorted or lost.

These rules seek to achieve a balance.

Each tank is characteised by its own armour thickness and uses different values for front side and rear. Well-sloped armour and high-quality armour get a bonus. Poor quality armour is penalised.

Thinking about it for a minute or two one can appreciate that there are so many variables in the precise instant of a particular shot and impact that absolute details can become meaningless. If, for example, a shot hits the towing lug situated on a tank’s glacis plate then the effective armour thickness could be more than doubled. On the other hand, a shot richocheting down into the hull top from the underside of a well-armoured gun mantlet could achieve a kill where ‘on paper’ success was unlikely or impossible.

The basic formula for the defence value of armour is to first round the thickness off to the nearest 10mm. 5mm or more counts as 10mm, less than 5 as 0mm. Then divide by 10 to achieve a manageable number.  If a vehicle is designated as having ‘well sloped’ armour then the starting mm thickness is increased by 66%.

Thus a T34 with 65mm of well-sloped armour has a defence of 11.

If desired add a factor for the turret armour. Use 50% of the turret armour plus 50% hull armour – because the turret was proportionately small but being the upper part of the tank more likely to be seen and hit ( or you change this to suit yourself, just be consistent and calculate it the same way for all vehicles).

In fact even though turrets had better sloped and thicker armour a powerful or well-placed shot could jam or dismount the turret and disable the tank as effectively as a penetration.

The ‘attack’ or ‘strike’ value of a projectile can be modelled effectively in an equally simple manner. Studying data for projectile penetration it has become obvious to me a very basic equation fits most of the data most of the time. Not ALL of the data ALL of the time and sometimes not even brilliantly well BUT check it for yourself and see. It works as well as more complex formulae. What is this brilliant formula ?

Take the calibre of a gun which has a calibre length of between 40 and 50. It will have a penetration of armour at between 500 and 1000 metres of the same value in millimetres !!!. If the gun has less than 40 calibres length the penetration drops by about 30%. If the Gun has more than 50 calibres length then penetration rises similarly. We can tweak faster guns up even more – by 50% of more than 60 calibres long – and it still fits approximately !!! This I call the ‘arbitrary strike’.

Bidwell, 1976

 "Artillery Tactics 1939–1945", Shelford Bidwell, Almark, 1976, page 72. Armour at 30º slope, type unspecified. Ranges in yards.

Bovington Museum, 1975

"Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.

Is it not surprisingly consistent ? If we remember battle ranges are usually between 500 and 1000m these data become even more useful.

We can also see from these data that ammunition type has a dramatic effect on penetration values. However, if we try to introduce selection or supply of ammunition types into a miniatures game then that way madness lies !

The best we can do in that line is to introduce a factor that the gamers decide to use or not as they please. If they want it – and perhaps pay more points for it – a gun can be said to have ‘high performance’ ammunition and get a 30% penetration bonus.

We should also have the opposite situation as possible – guns with ‘poor performance’ ammunition get a 30% reduction. So if you want to believe the poor performance of the Russian 76L41 (and this is probably true of 1941-42 when ammunition quality was bad) as indicated by the Bovington data above then just slap on the ‘-3’ for ‘poor performance’ ammo and you have a strike of 5 – voila !

Any attempt at a precise solution to this whole nutty  problem can never utilise consistent data – all nations use different laboratory bench marks and ways of quoting the results -  so I have opted for consistency of approach and simplicity as the guiding factors. This system does not produce results wildly at odds with much more ‘sophisticated’ or arcane game systems but does have the satisfying feeling of universality and ease of application.