Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was wondering if the firepower test is purely a game mechanic, or if it represents some sort of simulation of real life? I mean if we take the example of tanks, I know the British used solid shot shells in their AT guns. The shot didn't explode, it penetrated the German tanks Armour, creating tons of shrapnel and molten metal (from the heat of impact) killing and wounding crew, wrecking the tank and perhaps setting fuel and ammunition on fire. I think if a shot penetrated a tank, the tank was knocked out one way or another.

Discuss.

Many, many crews bailed at any impact or strike... as you never knew which one will be the one that sets a vehicle alight.

Given how hard it is to get out of a tank in a hurry, its understandable.

Crews would on occasion remount a vehicle once it was seen to be safe.

It doesnt need AP to render a tank useless. An AT Rifle can put a Tiger out of action, a Bren Gun can drive off panzers and even a crowbar has its uses.

What it really comes down too is crew experience and belief in their weapon system.