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.

So my brother and one of my buddies have been playing Battlegroup Kursk for a year or two now, once every few months. They ran a game Saturday night, 750 points. It was my first game and what follows are my initial impressions:

- The deployment rules are too random. The d6 units on board each turn left the Germans only getting 1 unit then 2 units while the Soviets rolled well and got a T-34 company on the table which proceeded to Stahl Stahl Stahl every turn, moving 24". The Germans had not even deployed half their units because of literally three bad dice rolls before the Soviets were in their deployment zone and had effectively won the game (an entire Panzergrenadier platoon had yet to be deployed due to low deployment rolling)

- The Stahl Stahl Stahl rule makes Soviets straight up superior to the German counterparts in 1943 which felt absolutely inaccurate (so because the Soviets had no radios they move better??) Each force had an equivalent number of officers, so the Stahl Stahl Stahl meant the Soviets had a far less Command Point requirement to get their massive army to move. Pound for pound - point for point - the Soviet armor is better. This is highlighted in the points cost for a T-34/85 as it is better than, but costs less points than, a Panzer IV. Combined with Stahl Stahl Stahl the Soviets just have a built-in advantage for points based games.

- the observation and aimed fire rules are not well designed. It was hard to stomach a tank not being able to spot a tank 11" in front of it (rolling a 1 instead of the 2+ required). And then, since most of the time tanks hit other tanks on a 6 unless it's point blank range (under 10"), the Ferdinand and Tiger the Germans had were useless as all the T-34's became a massed parking lot and surrounded the Germans, driving 24" directly to face the rear of the German tanks. The advantage to taking a Ferdinand is being able to shoot at 70" but you need 6's to hit anything past 20" anyway.

- the fact that you only hit on 6's the vast majority of the time means it's more tactically advantageous to take more guns, not better guns. Why spend the points on Tigers when you should just take a ton of Panzer III's, you need more dice because everything is hitting on 6's anyway. The ruleset penalizes the longer range high velocity guns by making them very very expensive but requiring the same number to hit. When every gun hits on a 6+, don't take just one, take as many as you can possibly get. When there's an equal chance on a single die then the only way to increase the odds is to take many. To that effect, anything at the Tiger level or above is simply not worth the points.

- however, even if the German player had not taken a Ferdinand and a Tiger, and instead taken a swarm of Panzer III's or IV's, it simply would not have mattered due to the random number of units that are allowed to show up. Because of the "1" and "2" rolled very early in the game, the Germans only had literally a few units while the Soviets had rolled to have 10 units, which were all moving two feet per turn. The extraordinary variance in the number of deployable units means that army composition goes straight out the window as you will have almost no control on when your own units will arrive. By the time the Soviets were rolling around the German deployment areas, the Germans had only managed to deploy 5 armored vehicles, one infantry squad, one observer and one command, due to terrible deployment rolling.

Anyway, I was not terribly impressed with the ruleset.

Im not sure you can blame rules for rolling low dice... and tanks that fire are spotted automatically in the open.

Deployment is 2d6 per turn for company engagements, which I presume it was if they had a company of T34s and 750 points. But recce troopsare already on table. Thats also only one of the many scenario types available. Other ones differ in deployment.

Soviets dont get as many officers as Germans and Stal Stal Stal is only d6 tanks, not the entire company. They also can only use Area Fire with it...

Area Fire doesnt need 'to spot'.

Sounds like they mayhave been using a few rules wrongly?

You may wanna point them to the forum at,

Www.guildwargamers.com

Im on there along with Warwick to answer queries.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry forget to answer the thing about needing a six to hit over 20".



Base to hit at the 20 to 30 bracket is 4+, 5+ if they are moving.

The benefit of German heavies is the impervious armour and guns that require 3+ on 2d6 to kill something!

H and you can take a Panzer Ace that gives +1 to hit if you are Germans...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and dont forget German veterans are harder to pin down too and pass Call of Duty tests easier...

I find it hard to beat Germans in BGK. Playing as Germans, I dont think I have lost in Kursk, but had lots of close runs though!


But I will say, BG is a learning experience if you are used to straight up 'tourny' style points games. Sometimes in BG you can almost defeat yourself with poor dice and bad BR chits.

It's designed to remove a players god like control but isnt to all tastes. You cant rely on your army doing everything you want.

It seems like some of the problems were just misinterpreted rules, though I do admit I don't like it when dice rolls take too much out of my hands.

I do want to hear more opinions on Battlegroup Kursk though... I'm interested in starting Battlegroup Kursk but would love to read more opinions before venturing out and ordering the book which is a bit more $$$ than I want to impulse buy at the moment

BG Kursk PDF out soon... will be cheaper...

I'd recommend watching the Warwick Kinrade/Model Dad video to get a general overview. Lengthy but helps give you some idea how the game plays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF2ry7BfKgU

Checking out the video wit the QRS sheet in hand also helps a little.

http://ironfistpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/QRS.pdf

privateer4hire wrote:
I'd recommend watching the Warwick Kinrade/Model Dad video to get a general overview. Lengthy but helps give you some idea how the game plays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF2ry7BfKgU

Checking out the video wit the QRS sheet in hand also helps a little.

http://ironfistpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/QRS.pdf

Hmm, looks interesting. I like a lot of the ideas like the order system where you get 2 actions and the chit system for winning or losing. I think I might hate the randomness of it though, I understand a bit of randomness to account for all the unseen factors in war, but as a game I hate the feeling of winning and losing on luck.

From the video it seems far more valuable to pin opponents than kill them as you build the chits faster, and I like that idea, though I think I would prefer it if chits were, say, 2 to 4 instead of 1 to 5 and removal of pins was 3+D3 instead of D6, so randomness plays a part but not such a huge part. Rolling a 1 to remove pins and then drawing a chit of 5 morale would just be hugely depressing

We often do (I think rightfully so) bash 40k for it's annoying randomness as well.

But maybe I'm wrong, I only just watched the video, haven't played a game yet, it'll be a few weeks before I paint up my models and then decide whether I want to buy the book or not.

The deployment rules are too random. The d6 units on board each turn left the Germans only getting 1 unit then 2 units while the Soviets rolled well and got a T-34 company on the table which proceeded to Stahl Stahl Stahl every turn, moving 24". The Germans had not even deployed half their units because of literally three bad dice rolls before the Soviets were in their deployment zone and had effectively won the game (an entire Panzergrenadier platoon had yet to be deployed due to low deployment rolling)

Have to say i rather like these deployment rules, it leads often to a more fluid game. I do find occasionally bad rolling can change the face of a battle, like you said one army charging on while the other creeps on. But generally it get rid of the lining up to armies on each side of the battlefield before starting which is an awful representation of that kind of more modern warfare.

Also a strong Recon section can really help blunt an early rush especially when supported well with artillery fire.

The Stahl Stahl Stahl rule makes Soviets straight up superior to the German counterparts in 1943 which felt absolutely inaccurate (so because the Soviets had no radios they move better??) Each force had an equivalent number of officers, so the Stahl Stahl Stahl meant the Soviets had a far less Command Point requirement to get their massive army to move. Pound for pound - point for point - the Soviet armor is better. This is highlighted in the points cost for a T-34/85 as it is better than, but costs less points than, a Panzer IV. Combined with Stahl Stahl Stahl the Soviets just have a built-in advantage for points based games.

I think stahl stahl stahl can seem a little unfair at first, but again as a German player i soon learned that ambush fire was my best friend against it. That and the Tiger tank, nothing can halt those T34s like just one tiger. Plus you maybe able to move fast but are limited to only HE area fire while do so. Also never neglect the lack of officers in T-34 platoon compared to the Panzer VI platoon, its an extra order each turn for the Germans.

And it was no radios so wreckless fast attacks against superior fire power, Kursk represents this pretty well in my books.

Have to disagree about the Panzer VI being worse, it has a much better chance of destroying a T34 then vice versa. For example at the second range bracket the Panzer VI has around a 72% chance of rolling a penetrating hit and destroying a T-34, the other way round only has about a 41% chance of penetrating and destroying a T34 (based on front armour).

Stick a tiger in the mix you have as germans at the range bracket and you have an 84% of a penetrating and killing hit, that and the T-34 against you is practically useless. Specially if you make a tiger ace, very hard to pin with direct fire and always hitting on 5+ at worst makes those long shots much better.

So yeah the T34 is good, but in the end found it pretty balanced. With the Russians to it all depends on what kind of scenery your playing on, decent amounts tends to curb stahl stahl stahl a little.

the observation and aimed fire rules are not well designed. It was hard to stomach a tank not being able to spot a tank 11" in front of it (rolling a 1 instead of the 2+ required). And then, since most of the time tanks hit other tanks on a 6 unless it's point blank range (under 10"), the Ferdinand and Tiger the Germans had were useless as all the T-34's became a massed parking lot and surrounded the Germans, driving 24" directly to face the rear of the German tanks. The advantage to taking a Ferdinand is being able to shoot at 70" but you need 6's to hit anything past 20" anyway.

Have to say i rather like this, seemed more realistic to me even if a little abstract. Made it feel that though the tank was close it was not just sat still, it is to be presumed to be making some sort of attempt to defend itself, maybe using smoke or more often we presume it to be the lay of the land, wargame tables rarely represent the small undulating nature of the real world and this rule to us helps abstract this a little.

As for the sixes to hit never noticed it as a massive burdern for us, enough things still seem to blow up on the table.

the fact that you only hit on 6's the vast majority of the time means it's more tactically advantageous to take more guns, not better guns. Why spend the points on Tigers when you should just take a ton of Panzer III's, you need more dice because everything is hitting on 6's anyway. The ruleset penalizes the longer range high velocity guns by making them very very expensive but requiring the same number to hit. When every gun hits on a 6+, don't take just one, take as many as you can possibly get. When there's an equal chance on a single die then the only way to increase the odds is to take many. To that effect, anything at the Tiger level or above is simply not worth the points.

Don't think this is true, stats on penetration speak for themselves, 84% chance to kill a T34 with a tiger, 28-40% ish chance with a Panzer III, three for the same points seems pretty balanced, you get more shots but are destroyed much more easily and struggle to kill the enemy, while the tiger does less in turn, not so many points but its a bunker against the Russians and kills rather easily.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
I'd recommend watching the Warwick Kinrade/Model Dad video to get a general overview. Lengthy but helps give you some idea how the game plays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF2ry7BfKgU

Checking out the video wit the QRS sheet in hand also helps a little.

http://ironfistpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/QRS.pdf

Hmm, looks interesting. I like a lot of the ideas like the order system where you get 2 actions and the chit system for winning or losing. I think I might hate the randomness of it though, I understand a bit of randomness to account for all the unseen factors in war, but as a game I hate the feeling of winning and losing on luck.

From the video it seems far more valuable to pin opponents than kill them as you build the chits faster, and I like that idea, though I think I would prefer it if chits were, say, 2 to 4 instead of 1 to 5 and removal of pins was 3+D3 instead of D6, so randomness plays a part but not such a huge part. Rolling a 1 to remove pins and then drawing a chit of 5 morale would just be hugely depressing

We often do (I think rightfully so) bash 40k for it's annoying randomness as well.

But maybe I'm wrong, I only just watched the video, haven't played a game yet, it'll be a few weeks before I paint up my models and then decide whether I want to buy the book or not.

Never felt like i have lost purely on chits, when my army has reached its limit and broken it feels fair, sometimes i think i might have had a couple more turns in me but rarely do i think i would have won. And yeah very depressing rolling 1 for pinning and pulling a 5, but also awesome when you roll 6 to unpin units and pull out a breakdown chit that buggers up there king tiger.

Its a really good system, and it can be tense in a close battle wondering just how close your enemy is to breaking, do you hold back and be cautious and go all out on a bold attack thinking you only have to cause one or two more chit draws.

 Salad_Fingers wrote:
Never felt like i have lost purely on chits, when my army has reached its limit and broken it feels fair, sometimes i think i might have had a couple more turns in me but rarely do i think i would have won. And yeah very depressing rolling 1 for pinning and pulling a 5, but also awesome when you roll 6 to unpin units and pull out a breakdown chit that buggers up there king tiger.

Its a really good system, and it can be tense in a close battle wondering just how close your enemy is to breaking, do you hold back and be cautious and go all out on a bold attack thinking you only have to cause one or two more chit draws.

I understand the appeal of not knowing how close your opponent is to breaking, it's just this...

And yeah very depressing rolling 1 for pinning and pulling a 5, but also awesome when you roll 6 to unpin units and pull out a breakdown chit that buggers up there king tiger.

...sounds like something I'm going to struggle to get my gaming group to want to try.

My gaming group pretty much exclusively consists of people who hated when WHFB/40k went to random charge distances and in general dislike things that are random and have a high importance.

I've had the randomness discussion many times with my primary gaming mates and we mostly found we are fine with randomness when it's the sort of stuff then tends to balance out over the course of a battle (like random to hit/to wound often tends to balance out over the course of the 10's or 100's of rolls you'd have in a typical game, random charge distance is the sort of thing where a single roll will make or break the game... it seems like rolling to remove pins and to determine how many orders per turn is a similar sort of thing).

But I dunno, I haven't played it yet. If the pdf rules are cheap enough I might grab them Getting the hardback book... it's both expensive and not available locally in any stores I've seen so I'm going to have to import it and am hesitant to buy it.

The only serious randomness we've had to houserule out of Battlegroup is the orders dice. Instead of each player rolling their own 2d6 they roll once per turn and share, then adding their officers onto that. That way low rolls on orders dice force both players to think hard on what they need to do. It also makes having more officers even more beneficial.

We just had too many games where one person was moving his entire army while the other could only use one third for several turns in a row. Its simply not fun to have your army paralyzed and taking a beating for no other reason than a bad dice roll regardless of if this mechanic is "realistic" or not.

As for the chits, it's important to note that there are less 5s in the pot than 2s and 3s, so that on average you will tend to draw lower numbers. It's true, some days you can get just plain unlucky and have your force hightail it outta there sooner than you want, but it still takes losing units/objectives to do so.

I'm with the Skink on randomness. Its really just unecessary in most instances, often times resulting in needless frustration. But I have to say that to me, Battlegroup is much less random than it may appear at face value. I find that the abstractions are well justified, and that at the end of the day the more competent commander will come out on top.

Now I want to play MOAR. Right. Now.

Hey!

Big P wrote:
Im not sure you can blame rules for rolling low dice... and tanks that fire are spotted automatically in the open.

It is true one cannot blame the game system for rolling poorly; however, one can blame poor game design where one or two bad rolls ruin the game. In this case, the deployment rolling of 3 units for the Germans over two turns and ten or eleven units for the Soviets over two turns. I've personally always had a huge problem with rulesets where the entire game hinges on one or two die rolls.

Big P wrote:

Deployment is 2d6 per turn for company engagements, which I presume it was if they had a company of T34s and 750 points. But recce troopsare already on table. Thats also only one of the many scenario types available. Other ones differ in deployment.

It was the scenario where the deployment was 20" lengths in opposite corners. Both Soviets and Germans had two recon units apiece. Going from memory, the Soviet list had 10 T-34's, 2 SU-152's, four squads of infantry, a truck with a towed 45mm antitank gun, a sniper, an armored car, and mg and mortar, and a handful of preplotted artillery (very, very effective for only 20 points apiece, btw), maybe a couple more units. The Germans had 3 Panzer IV, 1 Tiger, 1 Ferdinand, commander, radio, spotter, Panzergrenadier platoon (251/10 and three 251/1 I think), two recon motorcycles. If 750 points is supposed to be 2d6 deployment per turn, then it was played incorrectly, at a huge huge detriment to the German side (the game was lost by deployment for turn 3 due to the low rolls, straight up). However I thought it was d6 deployment regardless, but Command Points was d6 for platoon, 2d6 for company, etc. Plus officers.

Big P wrote:
Soviets dont get as many officers as Germans and Stal Stal Stal is only d6 tanks, not the entire company. They also can only use Area Fire with it...
Area Fire doesnt need 'to spot'.

Area Fire not needing to spot was pretty fantastic for the Soviets actually.
They both had three officers, so both were rolling 2d6+3. The Stal Stal Stal was a huge benefit as it alone got the T-34 parking lot across the field (and yes, it's d6, but, that was effectively like getting d6-1 free command points as you activate that many vehicles with only 1 CP). The Soviets were moving 5 T-34's with it on the last two turns of the game (turns 4/5 I think, as it was over so fast due to the rapid deployment, speed, coordination of the T-34's)

Big P wrote:
Sounds like they mayhave been using a few rules wrongly?

Possibly. The big one would be if it's supposed to be 2d6 units deployed per turn.

Big P wrote:
Base to hit at the 20 to 30 bracket is 4+, 5+ if they are moving.

Which would make it a 6 shooting at a moving target, or anything obscuring the target slightly. Even the close range 3+ to hit goes to a 6+ if you've moved, target has moved, and there's obscuring.
Now it could be our fault because the table was loaded with terrain. I'll attach a picture.

Big P wrote:

The benefit of German heavies is the impervious armour and guns that require 3+ on 2d6 to kill something!
H and you can take a Panzer Ace that gives +1 to hit if you are Germans...

Again, my argument is that since all guns are pretty much hitting on a 6+, you've flatlined. The only way to improve one dice rolling a 6+ is with more dice rolling a 6+. It's mathematically superior to have five Panzer III's than one Ferdinand (going by points in my head) that would have ten shots hitting on a 6+ versus two shots hitting on a 6+, even if the Panzer III's need a 7 or 8+ to kill, the average works out to almost the same - but the Panzer III's would be far more survivable because there's straight up more of them, if you lose one you still have lots of shots, versus pinning the Ferdinand means you get no shots.

Also I wish the heavies killed on a 3+. The Tiger shooting at 30" at a T-34, the one time it hit during that game, needed a 7+ to kill (I think a 6 was rolled).

Big P wrote:
But I will say, BG is a learning experience if you are used to straight up 'tourny' style points games. Sometimes in BG you can almost defeat yourself with poor dice and bad BR chits.
It's designed to remove a players god like control but isnt to all tastes. You cant rely on your army doing everything you want.

I really do like the BR chits concept. And I do like a lot of the concepts in BGK, but so far not much of the execution.

Shoot, apparently only one pic was taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Salad_Fingers wrote:
Have to say i rather like these deployment rules, it leads often to a more fluid game. I do find occasionally bad rolling can change the face of a battle, like you said one army charging on while the other creeps on. But generally it get rid of the lining up to armies on each side of the battlefield before starting which is an awful representation of that kind of more modern warfare.

Now, I agree, but I do not think such a wide variance in units showing up is a good representation of that. I do not come prepared with an alternate method, however

 Salad_Fingers wrote:
I think stahl stahl stahl can seem a little unfair at first, but again as a German player i soon learned that ambush fire was my best friend against it.

That still "feels" incorrect to me. The Germans were a fire and maneouver army - hell, at Kursk the Soviets had prepared 190 miles of deep defense which is the primary reason the Germans didn't break through strategically. The game system rewards Soviets for moving and firing - better than the Germans - and forces the German armor to be static defenses on overwatch. It's just weird.

 Salad_Fingers wrote:
And it was no radios so wreckless fast attacks against superior fire power, Kursk represents this pretty well in my books.

So there should be a penalty instead of a great big bonus - moving d6 units for 1CP at 24" and being able to fire is indicative of inferior leadership and lack of training and no radios?

 Salad_Fingers wrote:
Have to disagree about the Panzer VI being worse

I think you might be looking at T-34/76 stats. I was looking at a set of stats for a T-34/85, which I should have clarified. It was outside of the game that was played. It's been a few days but I seem to recall a T-34/85 being overall better at everything than a Panzer IV and costing less points.

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

Don't think this is true, stats on penetration speak for themselves, 84% chance to kill a T34 with a tiger, 28-40% ish chance with a Panzer III, three for the same points seems pretty balanced, you get more shots but are destroyed much more easily and struggle to kill the enemy, while the tiger does less in turn, not so many points but its a bunker against the Russians and kills rather easily.

You may have a point, but the rules encourage a T-34 Parking Lot moving 24" and literally surrounding a tank. You might lose 1, possible 2 T-34's, but you will kill a Tiger by bunkering it with a ring of T-34's. It's really weird to have vehicles move so quickly. The only defense against that would be lots more guns rolling lots more dice. See my reply to Big P earlier about the superiority of multiple dice.

JD,

Page 171 of the book, notes the number of d6 rolled for reinforcements per turn. For 750 you would want 2d6 per turn as its really a company level engagement.

With regards firing, in reality, firing at a moving target while also moving, was virtually impossible to do in WW2. A 6 to hit is better than reality at a distance.

I dont see why a bigger tank like a Tiger should hit any better. Its the same human crew doing the shooting, the tank doesnt help. Its just puts a bigger shell down range.

Thats why the Panzer III isnt a good bet, cos if you do hit, yout gun aint gonna knock out the T34 that easily.

As for Tigers, your experience is the opposite of mine. I had one take out 7 T34s in a demo game at the Crisis show in 2012, and our playtest team hated them. They felt you needed 10 T34s to take on Tigers... but they did play alot of games so their experience is over six months of playing almost weekly.

But yer, it does have a randomness that is chaotic at times, like real war and it doesnt play like other points based systems. That doesnt appeal to everyone of course. Does to me... but im biased!

Big P wrote:
Page 171 of the book, notes the number of d6 rolled for reinforcements per turn. For 750 you would want 2d6 per turn as its really a company level engagement.

Okay, cool, then it was being played wrong and I'll withdraw my complaint - which was the biggest one - about the reinforcements per turn.

Big P wrote:
With regards firing, in reality, firing at a moving target while also moving, was virtually impossible to do in WW2. A 6 to hit is better than reality at a distance. I dont see why a bigger tank like a Tiger should hit any better. Its the same human crew doing the shooting, the tank doesnt help. Its just puts a bigger shell down range.

Well, didn't the higher velocity shells traveled faster and were more generally more accurate?

For instance the last turn of the game for the Germans (before forfeit) saw a Panzer IV flub it's spotting roll (there was a T-34 about 4 inches in front of it, that had moved and fired, but was behind a wall, so needed a 2+ to spot), another Panzer IV miss from the close range band, and the Ferdinand miss from the close range band.

Found more pics. In this shot this is the beginning of the German turn after some Stal Stal Stal and area fire killed the commanders and radio operators and infantry that were on the crest of the hill (4+ cover save, failed). The burning PZIV could not spot those T-34's due to the wall (obstruction, so need a 2+ to spot) and a bad die roll on the previous turn. On this turn the Ferdinand and the other Panzer IV missed. Just out of frame on the left was a Tiger that did hit a T-34 (the only time the Germans hit a T-34 in the game) but it rolled a 6 to penetrate so it just made the tank riders leap off.

We're playing a Battlegroup Overlord game in a week and a half so maybe my opinion will change completely.

Not always with high velocity shells. In WW2 ammunition manufacture was low tech and mass production. Quality was over looked and rounds would not always perform well, and crews didn't always know what to do with them. People seem to over state the ease to hit a target at over 300m, with 1940s weapon systems, in a vehicle with no gun stabilisation, while moving, at a moving target througn the debris and dust of battle.

Let me offer one interesting statistic. German wartime range tests, suggested that crews often required 3 to 5 rounds at a target before a hit. They gave a worst case estimate of 27 rounds of 75mm AP to destroy a tank. In general, a higher velocity weapon will in theory allow a slight accuracy increase when stationary firing, but rarely more than 10%.

Incidently, 11th Armoured worked out that their Firefly tanjs in the ETO had a 5% hit rate with AP.


Dont matter how fast your shell travels if you cant aim properly, hence why tank crews tended to halt to fire.

Even the same gun could perform differently for example, 6 pounder APDS rounds had a different flight pattern to 6 pounder AP solid and gun crews found it hard to hit when first issued.

But the only thing that counts in WW2 for hitting the target, is a good gunner. Its the reason only the Germans get Panzer Ace in the game. They had some remarkable tank gunners that could perform miracles. Its the man, not the machine that is the reason you hit.

Sorry for the ramble, be interested to see your thiughts on Overlord. I would suggets a read of our forum and the two issues of Dispatches, our free battlegroup fanzine.

How are miniatures based for this game? Individually? or as squads?

 carlos13th wrote:
How are miniatures based for this game? Individually? or as squads?

Can be either, if you base as squads you just need a way to keep track of casualties.

Thanks.

Big P wrote:
Not always with high velocity shells.
Sorry for the ramble, be interested to see your thiughts on Overlord. I would suggets a read of our forum and the two issues of Dispatches, our free battlegroup fanzine.

Awesome, a lot of that I didn't know, thanks I'm wondering what the ammo ratio is in Battlegroup? Seems like most tanks have 7 to 9 shots, or, I think, 4 for the Ferdinand. I googled a bit and it looks like there was room for eighty-seven 75mm shells in a Panzer IV and fifty 88mm shells on the Ferdinand, so we're assuming about a 10-to-1 ratio on shells-to-game-shots.

I think thats roughly the rate Warwick uses, but we have changed some to give a better game... the IS2 springs to mind!

Its also to add a further dynamic to the game, and give those lovely supply truck models something to do!

Big P wrote:
Not always with high velocity shells. In WW2 ammunition manufacture was low tech and mass production. Quality was over looked and rounds would not always perform well, and crews didn't always know what to do with them. People seem to over state the ease to hit a target at over 300m, with 1940s weapon systems, in a vehicle with no gun stabilisation, while moving, at a moving target througn the debris and dust of battle.

Let me offer one interesting statistic. German wartime range tests, suggested that crews often required 3 to 5 rounds at a target before a hit. They gave a worst case estimate of 27 rounds of 75mm AP to destroy a tank. In general, a higher velocity weapon will in theory allow a slight accuracy increase when stationary firing, but rarely more than 10%.

Incidently, 11th Armoured worked out that their Firefly tanjs in the ETO had a 5% hit rate with AP.


Dont matter how fast your shell travels if you cant aim properly, hence why tank crews tended to halt to fire.

Even the same gun could perform differently for example, 6 pounder APDS rounds had a different flight pattern to 6 pounder AP solid and gun crews found it hard to hit when first issued.

But the only thing that counts in WW2 for hitting the target, is a good gunner. Its the reason only the Germans get Panzer Ace in the game. They had some remarkable tank gunners that could perform miracles. Its the man, not the machine that is the reason you hit.

Sorry for the ramble, be interested to see your thiughts on Overlord. I would suggets a read of our forum and the two issues of Dispatches, our free battlegroup fanzine.

As a curiosity then, do the Americans get a bonus as they did implement gyro stabilized guns? America's top tank ace actually credits this for his success, saying he could move while firing and still land rounds accurately. To the point he was moving faster than opposing armor could rotate their turret to track him.

The US Army manual on Tank Gunnary in the 1970s had a section on the accuaracy improvement of gunnary.

It stated that in World War 2 a stationary Sherman firing at a target 500 meters had to fire 13 rounds at the same target before it would even reach a 50% chance to hit the target.

FM 17-12 presents some interesting advice on the use of the Sherman gyro stabilizer:"FIRING WHILE MOVING""

Firing with the 75mm gun while moving is inaccurate and causes an uneconomical expenditure of ammunition. Do it only in an emergency and at ranges of 600 yards or less."Even with a gyro stabilizer 600 yards is about it, and misses are expected.

The 600 yard range may be based on a reasonable hit probability given the initial range estimation (which may contain some error), and the small angle errors that will occur with a stabilizer."Firing while moving requires close teamwork between driver and gunner.

Drive at a constant speed: acceleration and decleration upset the action of the stabilizer. Drive in a straight line, otherwise the gun yaws as the tank turns. When going over rough terrain, do not fight the gun (attempting to keep it on target by spinning the elevating handwheel) but wait until a constant speed and regained and the action of the stabilizer has smoothed out.""

The stabilizer will not lay the gun. It merely tends to keep the gun where it has been laid: that is, it eliminates extremely jerky movements caused by the movement of the tank. Even with a stabilizer, the gun does not hold constantly on the target. Watch the swing of the gun through the target and fire as the proper sight setting crosses the target."

And yet most crews switched the stabilizer off...mainly as it took 20 mins to warm up, had to be reset after every five rounds and had to be recalibrated if changing ammo type.

Even with a stabiliser, the gun does not hold its target. Its general benefit was to stabilise the gun yaw and pitch after halting.

Nevermind!

As for the spotting distance and not seeing the T-34 that was 4 inches away.

It is really hard to see out of a buttoned up tank. In WWII you didn;thave a lot of fun gizmos to help out. You basically had a slit and a little periscope. Not exactly a great field of vision while under fire and moving around.

When we first started playtesting, one of our testers was a USMC SAW gunner out in Iraq in 2003.

One of his club members said the spotting mechanic was silly and unrealistic as you wouldnt miss a tank.

He then related this story...

While fighting in Iraq he exited an alley way and took up a firing position prone on the road and began giving covering fire, expecting his squad to then rush out over the road. No one came out with him. After firing a few bursts to keep some enemy heads down, he began to wonder where everyone was.

It was only when it fired its main gun over his head and down the road that he realised their was an Iraqi T55 a few yards behind him. He hadnt spotted it as his vision was focussed purely on an enemy position in front of him, and the tank was buttoned up so didnt see him.

He said he promptly retired to a safer firing position...

Point is, in war its chaos and dust and debris and very confusing. Its an abstract to simulate that.

Good points, Big P.

A recommended read is Defense of Duffer's Drift.
A young officer gets to dream-plan his way through a defensive action, learning from each successive dream to correct his tactical errors. Among them was not getting down to see what his men would see from ground and prone levels.

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/The%20Defence%20of%20Duffers%20Drift.pdf

privateer4hire wrote:
Good points, Big P.

A recommended read is Defense of Duffer's Drift.
A young officer gets to dream-plan his way through a defensive action, learning from each successive dream to correct his tactical errors. Among them was not getting down to see what his men would see from ground and prone levels.

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/The%20Defence%20of%20Duffers%20Drift.pdf

Man that was a really good read. Thanks for that.

Big P wrote:
Let me offer one interesting statistic. German wartime range tests, suggested that crews often required 3 to 5 rounds at a target before a hit. They gave a worst case estimate of 27 rounds of 75mm AP to destroy a tank. In general, a higher velocity weapon will in theory allow a slight accuracy increase when stationary firing, but rarely more than 10%.

Incidently, 11th Armoured worked out that their Firefly tanjs in the ETO had a 5% hit rate with AP.

Interesting numbers, do you have more details on them? I don't know why but I love statistics

They don't really surprise me if we're talking about ranges of over a few hundred meters, though I wonder what sort of range scaling was in mind when writing the rules? Because if using 15mm scale models, 20" is only about 50 meters. I tend to picture most table top wargames that are larger than 6mm to be more like deadly close ranged exchanges that are over quite quickly. I imagine a 15/20/28mm battle to be the close ranged push that results from hours or days of manoeuvring. When a Tiger gets within 100m (40" in 15mm scale) of a T34 I don't imagine the encounter lasting through too many AP rounds. Though moving and shooting at a target that is also moving and shooting at you I think would be very unlikely to get a hit even at quite close ranges, I thought that was the point of shoot-shoot, move-shoot vs move-move to represent that shooting with any effect requires stopping long enough to shoot.

 Easy E wrote:
As for the spotting distance and not seeing the T-34 that was 4 inches away.

It is really hard to see out of a buttoned up tank. In WWII you didn;thave a lot of fun gizmos to help out. You basically had a slit and a little periscope. Not exactly a great field of vision while under fire and moving around.

That is true, but you also had 5 people in the tank, one of those people had the job of spotting and directing the rest of the tank, so he would have been looking very intently through those periscopes. That said as much as I'd like to, I've never looked through a Tiger or Panzer IV's tank commander's periscopes to see what it was like

Having had the pleasure of seeing through a Panzer III, a Tiger and a Shermans turret vision ports, I can say they are all pretty awful. Very limiting, with many blind spots that get worse as things close distance to a degree.

Given how many vision blocks just the TC has to try and look through, I think 6 at least on the Sherman, you cant just sit looking through one. The vision area is tiny. You wouldnt see infantry stalking you (hence why WW2 tanks needed infantry support) and the chances of seeing a tank up close in even moderate terrain are poor, hence why TCs sat up in the hatch in the open, the vision was so much better and despite the high risk it was well worth it.

The British Army in Italy made in a standing order to forbid buttoning up except when under artillery fire as the vision difference in vast.

If you want to get a feel for it, stand outside your house and do a 360. Then go indoors and look out through your letterbox. Thats the difference, and it was one that could be the difference between life and death.

Incidently, most successful TCs never seemed to have fought tank engagements buttoned up as they knew the value of good visibility. Wittmann at Villers-Bocage rode out of the turret and still managed to miss several tanks and an AT gun. Otto Carius rode up in the cupola, and suffered a nasty head wound for it, though it likely saved his crew in that engagement.

For statistical analysis, and all the pointlessness it brings, check out the work of the Dupuy Institute of Hisrorical Research and Analysis... or trawl German archive for the various Waffenamt reports! You could also look at the work of Zetterling if interested in Normandy or Kursk.

This thread has been utterly fascinating. Thanks Big P

No problem... but I do ramble!

Just realised, sat on my window ledge by my painting desk is a 1943 Sherman vision port.

Though next to it is an 88mm shell casing I pulled from a hedge at Moissy Ford in Normandy...

Mind sharing a photograph of that? Maybe not in this thread as its off topic but I would like to see it.