User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Vänerns Pärla

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 20 Dec 2020, 00:53

I am trying to figure out how you get to 5. 2 base plus 4 successes is 6 damage? That is assuming an AA on your skills.
The first 'base' success do weapon damage (the damage listed on the weapon), the other 'base' successes (can only be three of those) will increase this damage by one point each (there are other stunts here that you can choose, but increased damage is the one most likely to be picked in this example). The ammo dice can't get increased effects by the so called stunts, only the base hit will, so they can only do weapon damage.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
bayne
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed 16 Dec 2020, 19:01

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 20 Dec 2020, 00:58

Oh gosh I feel like Duh! Thanks for explaining this.
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Vänerns Pärla

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 20 Dec 2020, 01:00

Oh gosh I feel like Duh! Thanks for explaining this.
I have played YZE-games for years and i for some reason forgot about it in my crossed-over example above so :oops:
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
User avatar
omnipus
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 20 Dec 2020, 01:52

It does seem like the armor values for many vehicles at the far end of the spectrum have been scaled down, probably to give players a chance against them at all. Which is probably a wise decision.

The game also penalizes vehicles by not really accounting for shots that penetrate but hit nothing. Pretty easy to put holes in a BTR with an M2, but many of those rounds are not going to hit anything of much value. In the game, if you penetrate, you hit something.

The real issue here with this example (which I agree is otherwise minor) is that the armor rating gets reduced by one on a successful hit, making it MUCH more likely that future shots will do the same. One shot that will probably do little damage is easy to explain away as a freak occurrence. After that, it gets harder and harder to do so.
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Vänerns Pärla

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 20 Dec 2020, 02:00

I agree that small caliber bullets shouldn't reduce armor on a vehicles, at least not that easily.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
User avatar
The JollyGM
Topic Author
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat 25 May 2019, 15:02

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Mon 21 Dec 2020, 10:51

I agree that small caliber bullets shouldn't reduce armor on a vehicles, at least not that easily.
I agree as well!
 
AEB
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat 19 Sep 2020, 06:01

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Tue 22 Dec 2020, 04:57

In part it depends on the composition of the armour. With steel armour you'd getting spaulding on the interior of the plate more than through-and-through penetrations. Spaulding can injure crew or passengers and can damage equipment but is unlikely to KO the vehicle.

But some vehicles run with Aluminium alloy or Magnesium alloy armours - mostly in light vehicles from the 60s / 70s. That type of armour is more vulnerable to straight penetration but small holes don't degrade the overall armour in a noticeable way (may compromise NBC protection though).

I suspect that a lot of AFVs in Twilight will have patches indicating major hits on their armour in prior engagements.
 
aspqrz
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 07 Sep 2020, 12:17
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 27 Dec 2020, 16:32

I suspect that a lot of AFVs in Twilight will have patches indicating major hits on their armour in prior engagements.
*Can* you 'patch' MBT Armour? Or patch it in a meaningful way rather than, say, just slapping some tread links over it or welding some mild steel plate from somewhere? Neither of which would be particularly helpful against AP/HEAT type weapons. Heck, maybe not even against heavy calibre smallarms.

And then there's the likelihood that any penetrating hit against MBTs will burn the damn thing up, maybe set off the internal ammo, and do a number on it.

I know the Israelis used a lot of captured Russian MBTs but I've seen pictures of a lot of burnt out hulks still on the old battlefields, so how many of the ones they refurbished were burnt out hulks?

I suppose if the HEAT or AP round hit the engine compartment it might be possible that the whole tank wouldn't be destroyed and the engine might be replaceable from a mobility killed model ...

But I suspect a very large nonzero percentage of KOed MBTs will *remain* KO'ed.

Phil McGregor
 
aspqrz
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 07 Sep 2020, 12:17
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Sun 27 Dec 2020, 16:44

Then there's the general reliability problem of Cold War era Russian tanks (and, if we are to believe the embarrassing breakdown on the Mayday parade a few years ago, even their new models) ... they were designed to almost be throwaway weapons. From what I remember reading the engines were good for around 250 hours of run time and then had to be torn down and basically rebuilt, at which time they were good for another 250 hours (or so) ... after that you threw them away and replaced them completely.

Of course, the Russian assumption was that the tank wouldn't last 250 hours in combat in the first place, so it didn't matter.

I understand that the Gearboxes were also problematic, while not as bad as those for the T-34 (which went into action with a spare gearbox strapped to the back hull since they would rate for maybe 20-50 hours running time) and other components were found by allied tests to have a MBTF of as little as 2 1/2 hours (at least, that was in Korea, so it may have been rubbish NKPA maintenance).

AFAIUI these maintenance problems applied to all models of MBT likely to be in service in 2000 ... so it probably doesn't matter much whether the armour on Russian MBTs can be repaired or not, but whether you have the engines to replace the clapped out ones (very unlikely by 2000) and, worse, the techs and the maintenance infrastructure to do all that (always a problem with the Cold War Russian army).

Western tanks with generally better reliability and lesser (but still high compared to civilian vehicles) maintenance requirements and a greater tech pool to draw qualified (or even unqualified) mechanics from would make keeping some of them running a better bet than the Russian crap.

Russian vehicles, especially APCs and MBTs, could have really fragile rube goldberg components that made the huge numbers built less threatening than they might seem on the face of it, for the simple reason most of them would be unserviceable and broken down by the wayside within hours of the war having started.

Phil McGregor
 
User avatar
omnipus
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: Armor Pen on vehicles and Small Arms

Mon 28 Dec 2020, 00:27

Given that those T-34s managed to shatter the Ukrainian front and roll into Berlin in huge numbers, I'm inclined to believe that the Soviets figured out a doctrine/logistical solution that was good enough.

Nonetheless there are probably quite a few tanks around that are permanently immobile and have been towed into fixed gun positions.

The recoverability of vehicles depends a lot on having adequate support arms, and of course in controlling the battlefield to be able to do it. At least in recent history, not a lot of armor "destroyed" in capable armies has been completely written off -- most returns to action fairly quickly. Again, that relies on a logistical chain that may quite likely not exist anymore. Many Western tanks are less susceptible to being write-offs due to blow-out ammunition storage, etc... but there's so many less of them to begin with. And I'd imagine it's quite a struggle to allocate the fuel an Abrams really needs to roam far. On both sides I expect you'd see a significantly higher number of older models as the newer ones have been destroyed early on, or their more complex mechanisms broken down or just determined not worth the effort. Armor may be one of those factors. But if lacking a supply of high-tech ceramic/composite armor, I imagine most would improvise with steel and figure out something that returns the vehicle to some sort of service whatsoever.

Abrams, Challengers, and T-80s gone by the wayside and M60s and T-55s the king of most battlefields again.

More importantly, though, this isn't really a tank game. Far more common are BTRs and battle-taxis -- which are likely shot full of .50 holes over and over, welded up, and still going -- and still for the most part a grave threat to any player.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests