minijester1
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu 20 Aug 2020, 00:08

Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 16:50

(Cross-post from Discord)
So, in a turn of events my group has a T-72 so have been getting my head around vehicle rules.
I think there has been a mistake with regards to the Vehicle Cannon Stats. Particularly between HE, HEAT and APFSDS.

Currently, HE has the highest range, HEAT and APFSDS both apply -1 armor mods but HEAT obviously also has blast. But cost-wise, HE<HEAT<APFSDS
Which makes no sense both mechanically (and iirc IRL, aren't APFSDS way less complicated to produce than HEAT rounds??)

I then looked at using conversion rules from both 2nd edition and 1st edition to find:
  • The Ranges of HE should be the same as HEAT and APFSDS should have that extra range, which totally makes sense (and mechanically makes a reason to use it).
  • APFSDS should also be around the same cost as HEAT rather than being (at 125mm) 500 vs 350!

Before (RAW):
125mm | Dmg | Crit | Blast | Range | Armor | Cost
APFSDS | 11 | 1 | -- | 30 | -1 | 500
HE | 10 | 1 | B | 40 | +2 | 250
HEAT | 11 | 1 | B | 30 | -1 | 350

After Swap:
125mm | Dmg | Crit | Blast | Range | Armor | Cost
APFSDS | 11 | 1 | -- | 40 | -1 | 500
HE | 10 | 1 | B | 30 | +2 | 250
HEAT | 11 | 1 | B | 30 | -1 | 500

Using Conversion:
125mm | Dmg | Crit | Blast | Range | Armor | Cost
APFSDS | 11 | 1 | -- | 45/50 | -1 | 600
HE | 10 | 1 | B | 40 | +2 | 600
HEAT | 11 | 1 | B | 40 | -1 | 600

Just intrigued if this is flawed or I am missing something, eager to hear thoughts!
 
paladin2019
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon 07 Dec 2020, 09:16

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 17:27

AP ammo depends on KE for its effects so it does not have the same effective range as explosive shells. However, the system is kind of borked as there is very little reason to ever use AP over HEAT.
 
minijester1
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu 20 Aug 2020, 00:08

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 18:32

Yeah, aware of that as the case, was thinking that you could create different damage for different ranges too.

The only reason I'm bringing it up is there are zero reasons to use AP at all, and using the conversion rules provides different results to RAW.

It might just be an issue with the pricing or a bit of both!
 
baldrick0712
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 28 May 2021, 12:29

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 19:00

I don't own any previous editions and haven't read up on the vehicle weapon rules yet but...

In real life, HEAT can be prematurely detonated by something as simple as metal slats bolted onto the vehicle. Such "slat armour" upgrades were very prevalent in recent conflicts. Maybe this would make APFSDS worth using?

Image
 
paladin2019
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon 07 Dec 2020, 09:16

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 19:15

In real life, HEAT can be prematurely detonated by something as simple as metal slats bolted onto the vehicle. Such "slat armour" upgrades were very prevalent in recent conflicts. Maybe this would make APFSDS worth using?
Premature detonation is not the goal of RPG cages, it is an exploit of the detonation sequence specific to RPGs, specifically shorting the electrical detonation signal.
 
baldrick0712
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri 28 May 2021, 12:29

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 19:29

In real life, HEAT can be prematurely detonated by something as simple as metal slats bolted onto the vehicle. Such "slat armour" upgrades were very prevalent in recent conflicts. Maybe this would make APFSDS worth using?
Premature detonation is not the goal of RPG cages, it is an exploit of the detonation sequence specific to RPGs, specifically shorting the electrical detonation signal.
Thanks. Disregard my comment then. I had a feeling it was only for large RPG type weapons.
 
minijester1
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu 20 Aug 2020, 00:08

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 19:42

Thanks for the replies.

Yes I am aware of that too but there aren't many times that will be the case in the setting. I am also unsure how to model that resistance in the system.

Thinking it from a game design perspective;
The cost of APFSDS >> HEAT for something that is inherently worse. This creates redundancy, though there are reasons to use one over the other IRL.

The other thing to note is the conversion rules do not match up from either edition!

I'm just trying to understand why this is the case, whether it is fine as is, whether it's just the cost is wrong. Either way how to fix it for the game!
 
User avatar
omnipus
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon 22 Jun 2020, 20:58

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Tue 15 Jun 2021, 23:58

I think the only reason is simplicity. Which is fine and maybe even ideal. However, if you've got a group that want to be tankers, and especially if they know anything about it, it's probably gonna rub the wrong way.

Here's the things missing from the rules in that regard:
  • Rules for falling velocity (penetration) over range
  • Rules for composite armor
  • Rules for reactive armor

Without those three things, you can't really accurately represent modern vehicle combat. Adding them, of course, adds a fair amount of complexity (and, potentially, having to explain those concepts to your players, if they're not familiar). IMO this should and hopefully will absolutely be covered in some sort of vehicle expansion and advanced rules.

APFSDS should definitely have more range, accuracy, and effectiveness against modern armor, many of which are all but impervious to HEAT (especially from the front). Most HEAT rounds simply cannot defeat any sort of modern composite armor or reactive armor. Is there still reactive armor around? I guess that one is up to you but it's probably 100% related to how much good ammo/ATGMs are still around!

As for cost/complexity... well, that depends. There's no moving parts really and no mechanic complexity, but there is a need for more sophisticated materials/metallurgy. You can maybe make an adequate HEAT round using more common knowledge and materials at hand than you could make a quality sabot round. (don't quote me on this, just how it seems to me)
 
andresk
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon 05 Oct 2020, 16:38

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Wed 16 Jun 2021, 08:57

APFSDS should definitely have more range, accuracy, and effectiveness against modern armor, many of which are all but impervious to HEAT (especially from the front). Most HEAT rounds simply cannot defeat any sort of modern composite armor or reactive armor.

Very true. A quick and dirty way to rule the different armor types would be to maybe ignore all damage from HEAT and HE if armor type is compound (unless damage is some X amount larger than armor value). And for reactive make the damage ignore a roll.
I'll try to remember and go over the vehicle sheet, marking all the different armor types for different vehicles when I have the time.

As for cost/complexity... well, that depends. There's no moving parts really and no mechanic complexity, but there is a need for more sophisticated materials/metallurgy. You can maybe make an adequate HEAT round using more common knowledge and materials at hand than you could make a quality sabot round. (don't quote me on this, just how it seems to me)

Also very true, depending on just how bad you imagine things being (when considering the rulebook says civil order has broken down, so we can assume pretty bad) the manufacturing of APFSDS would either be non-existent or only happening in some remote areas of USA or Russia. APFSDS ammo is not an easy thing to develop or produce, I remember hearing something about Russia having troubles with it - that's why their penetrator darts are shorter than NATO ones. (citation very much needed) Meanwhile HE ammo is relatively simple and HEAT can be put together with some simple set of tools as well. The hardest part would probably be all sorts of fancy fuses.
 
User avatar
Ursus Maior
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 25 Aug 2020, 20:58
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Cannon Stats Look Off (HE vs HEAT vs APFSDS)

Wed 16 Jun 2021, 23:00

Here's the things missing from the rules in that regard:
  • Rules for falling velocity (penetration) over range
  • Rules for composite armor
  • Rules for reactive armor

Without those three things, you can't really accurately represent modern vehicle combat.
The way I read this, it's only three things that would need to be addressed and given that T2K is mostly void of high-tech equipment, the latter two factors should come into play only sparsely. I'd still like to see rules for them, because that suits my approach on military wargaming and roleplaying. Also, at least canonically the odd T-80 or Leopard 2 will show up from time to time. One can of course discuss, if it's not more likely for characters to encounter T-34s or M-48s by the year 2000, but I'm all in for player empowerment and that means giving me (as a referee) choices, too.
APFSDS should definitely have more range, accuracy, and effectiveness against modern armor, many of which are all but impervious to HEAT (especially from the front). Most HEAT rounds simply cannot defeat any sort of modern composite armor or reactive armor. Is there still reactive armor around? I guess that one is up to you but it's probably 100% related to how much good ammo/ATGMs are still around!

As for cost/complexity... well, that depends. There's no moving parts really and no mechanic complexity, but there is a need for more sophisticated materials/metallurgy. You can maybe make an adequate HEAT round using more common knowledge and materials at hand than you could make a quality sabot round. (don't quote me on this, just how it seems to me)
SPOILER: Scroll down to the bottom of this text wall for my ideas.

Let me throw some rough ideas in. During the 1960s, tank designs were in an aporia. There seemed to be no armor protection good enough to guard against HEAT rounds, which could always improve penetration by enlarging the caliber, which added less weight to the tank than the additional armor that had to be added. Also, tactical nuclear weapons were doctrinal to the expected battlefields, nullifying any heavier armor than protection from medium caliber guns to the front and autocannons to the sides. Beyond that, speed seemed to be the better form protection over steel, since target acquisition was still relying on optical coincidence rangefinders and gun stabilizers were in their infancy. As such, first shot accuracy was abysmal, compared to the later Cold War and quantity of tanks seemed a solution over quality of accuracy. This aporia gave us the T-62 (I'm leaving out the T-55, because it's denomination as an MBT was retroactively introduced, the T-55 being the first true tank of that type it was developed as an improved T-54 medium tank), the Leopard 1 and even the M60 and Chieftain, which both tried increasing armor and not speed.

Composite armor becomes available after 1970. The first tanks equipped with these kinds of armors are the T-64 (all variants), T-72 (from model A onward, but leaving out the export version marked "M") in the USSR and in the West the M1, the Challenger 1 and the Leopard 2. By that time, the main types of ammunition to defeat armor were:
  • APDS rounds, which superseded armour-piercing composite rigid (APCR) and armor-piercing, capped, ballistic capped (APCBC) ammunition, uniting all features positive about the two earlier types of ammunition: a hardened penetrator doubling penetration over wartime standards, high velocity, and low drag, allowing for velocity being kept at larger distances.
  • HESH rounds, which are at thin metal rounds filled with delayed action fused plastic-explosive. The round squashes the explosive against the hull of the target creating heavy spalling within the inside of the tank, once the explosive goes off. Often, no penetration of the actual armor occurs, but the crew, equipment as well as the motive elements of the target are hit by extensive shrapnel, disabling the tank effectively.
  • HEAT rounds, which produce a stream of hot gas that penetrates the armor, were the most effective during the 1960s, as the jet of hot gases formed the same independently from projectile velocity and as such targets could successfully engaged at all distances that allowed for the necessary accuracy. A technological downside of HEAT rounds was that the spin imposed upon the projectile by the rifling of contemporary guns inhibited proper forming of the jet. This problem had been largely countered by the Germans in World War Two by installing driving bands upon the casing of any HEAT round, absorbing the spin and thus not imposing it upon the projectile proper (to full effect). However, HEAT rounds did suffer somewhat from inaccuracy, when compare to APDS rounds.
Composite armor changed all that as it was supremely efficient against HEAT rounds by laminating steel to plastics, silicates and/or ceramics, which all had different hardness, thermal capabilities and durability, negating much of the jet stream formed by HEAT projectiles. At the same time, rifled guns were at the maximum of their velocity capabilities, since the rifling itself inhibited the acceleration of the projectile. The T-62 broke this dead-end by incorporating the first smooth-bore cannon and stabilizing armor-piercing rounds not by imposing spin, but by installing fins onto the projectiles. At the same time, HEAT rounds could be fired much more accurate from smooth-bore guns, if fins were added, too, also negating the need for driving bands. The T-62 did not feature composite armor, though, but the T-64 and T-72A did, at least to some degree.

Adding composite armor to existing designs was not possible at that time, but another form of protection allowed up-armoring against HEAT rounds. Explosive reactive armor was first used during the 1970s as well. The Soviets, again, were the first to field Kontakt-1 ERA around the end of the decade. First-generation ERA did not work against kinetic penetrators, such as AP(FS)DS, but provided high levels of protection against HEAT rounds, by damaging the jet and/or inhibiting its proper formation. ERA, due its natural explosive design (it's in the name!) posed a large threat to close by personnel or even soft-skinned vehicles.

Newly available APFSDS rounds matured during the late 1970s and became longer in shape during the 1980s. This allowed them to remain on a stable path longer, even while penetrating composite armor, diminishing its effects. This was necessary due to composite spaced armor becoming available, which deformed the kinetic penetrator by armored plates being set in vertical angles. HEAT rounds on the other hand, started countering ERA by employing a second, more powerful HEAT charge behind an initial, small charge, which set of ERA tiles before the main charge detonated. The effect of ERA was thus circumvented for the second charge.

A final generation of changes to the old race between firepower and armor came in the late 1980s and early 1990s with Kontakt-5 and similar second generation ERA, which now also worked against APFSDS long rod penetrators and applique composite armor becoming available, such as the German MEXAS. Also, composite spaced armor started employing spaced armor at varying oblique angles, negating to a large effect the advantages of early long-rod APFSDS rounds. In effect, next generation long-rods had to become even longer. This development, as well as the introduction of Tandem-HEAT rounds, also made ammunition noticeably larger than 30 years ago, diminishing the combat loads of tanks.

Now, how can this be implemented into the game?

First, I would argue that there needs to be some form of optional rules. Full implementation does not seem to benefit all groups in the same way, as details can quickly be overwhelming. Second, in my opinion, there should be attributes that can be easily applied to tanks and rounds to alter and denominate their game effects. These attributes would simply cancel each other out or modify the "Armor" modifier of cannon ammunition. Third, the armor values of vehicles should not be changed, but only altered by these new attributes. Also, smaller caliber cannons should have the same types of ammunition denominations as larger ones. There is no technical difference between a 20 mm armor-piercing round and a 125 mm round, both use discarding sabots and have used them for decades. Also, there are actually 40 mm HEAT rounds, like the M430A1 used by NATO grenade launchers. The armor penetration is actually not bad given the caliber, so why omit them?

What happened simultaneously to all these developments, was the introduction of laser-range finders as well as fully stabilized gun systems. At the end of the Cold War, first shot accuracy with APFSDS for western tanks (M1 or Leopard 2) was over 80 % at 3 km, while on the move. That would mean that rulewise such a shot should roll a pool of D12 + D12. This would include all modifiers, i. e. rangefinding, (digital) fire control system, stabilization, and ammunition.

Fire control systems and stabilization as well as rangefinders are encompassed in the Player's Manual p. 84-85, but should be somewhat expanded upon to accurately display the difference between an early model T-64 and a late model Abrams or Leopard 2. Likewise, the Player's Manual already differs between APDS and APDFS, giving the latter better armor penetration. This might be due to the caliber or combining both, though. Also, HEAT-MP ammunition, as used by western tanks (primarily with the 120 mm cannons), cannot be simulated here, since their properties would fall between HEAT and HE rounds and currently the stats leave no room for that. However, HESH rounds are introduced, as they have unique capabilities.

All in all, I think the following attributes should give more detail and make the different types of ammunition and armor more viable.
  • Smoothbore [SMB], denominates a smoothbore cannon. This type of cannon always shoots fin-stabilized ammunition and thus infers a +1 Accuracy modifier when shooting. All other cannons are assumed to be rifled, as there are just these two types available.
  • Composite Armor [CA], confers a +1 modifier to the Armor value of HEAT and APDS (but not APFSDS) projectiles. This is the original Chobham or Dolly Parson armor of the 1970s.
  • Composite Spaced Armor [CSA], confers a +2 modifier to the Armor value of HEAT and APDS and a +1 to APFSDS projectiles. This resembles later protection system including non-explosive reactive armor or simple spacings.
  • Explosive Reactive Armor [ERA], comes in two generations, ERA and ERA2. ERA confers a +1 modifier to the Armor value of HEAT projectiles, while ERA2 confers the same modifier to APDS and APFSDS projectiles as well. When a vehicle is hit the ERA tiles will explode, showering the hexes in the angle of attack with the equivalent of a 40 mm HE blast (cf. p. 113).
  • Advanced Fire Control System [AdvFCS], received rules in the Player's Manual, but no tank is stated with one. At least the M1(A1) and the Leopard 2(A4) should have these.
  • High Explosive Squash Head [HESH], these new type of rounds work are essentially high explosive rounds that inflict massive damage against a vehicles internals. HESH rounds have Armor values equal to HEAT rounds of the same caliber and crew of vehicles hit will suffer Explosive Hits one level worse than noted for HEAT rounds. However, HESH rounds cannot be fired from smoothbore cannons and are easily cancelled by all armor-related attributes: vehicles benefitting from CA, CSA and ERA will treat HESH rounds like HE rounds of one caliber size smaller.
liber & infractus

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests