Looking to discuss 2pdr effectiveness in RL and CMAK

[JasonC]

Well that is certainly evidence. Any German side returns to show a reduction in IIIs (or IVs) running? (Not IDed as IIIs rather than IIs so not as dispositive as it might be on its own. It always helps when the claim refers to the specific vehicle one is trying to talk about).

On Gs a type entry reads in relevant part "Ausf G: 6/ZW...Late models had 30 mm plates added to hull and superstructure in front, and lower hull in the rear." G production ends 2/41, so "late models" would presumably refer to the end of 1940 and the begining of 1941.

Here is a model IDed (perhaps mistakenly I suppose) as a III G from 15th PD that clearly has the bolted armor. Perhaps it is just an H. It says it is copied out of Actung Panzer volume 2.

http://www.ww2modelmaker.com/modelpages/DGpaniiig.htm

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/pjpz3.htm

This site says the whole series from E to H was uparmored - "The front wall of the bow armor in the Ausf. E to H was strengthened by addition of a 30mm armor plate (either screwed-on or welded-on)."

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/panzer3b.html

The Actung Panzer site seems to support that, refering to uparmoring of Es and Fs. (It also says late Gs had the 400mm track width of the Hs - of course production of the two overlapped for 5 months). But that may reflect confusion over the IV E and III H, I suppose - while the bolted G may simply be a mis-IDed 15th Panzer H. Or, all of them may have been overhauled-upgraded to the H level at the same time the guns were upgraded to 50L42.

To me it remains a Scottish "not proven". A clear indication the 2 pdr at 1500m losses were IIIs would settle the matter in my mind. But just "killed any DAK tank" at that range isn't quite enough.

[JasonC]

Well that is certainly evidence. Any German side returns to show a reduction in IIIs (or IVs) running? (Not IDed as IIIs rather than IIs so not as dispositive as it might be on its own. It always helps when the claim refers to the specific vehicle one is trying to talk about).

On Gs a type entry reads in relevant part "Ausf G: 6/ZW...Late models had 30 mm plates added to hull and superstructure in front, and lower hull in the rear." G production ends 2/41, so "late models" would presumably refer to the end of 1940 and the begining of 1941.

Here is a model IDed (perhaps mistakenly I suppose) as a III G from 15th PD that clearly has the bolted armor. Perhaps it is just an H. It says it is copied out of Actung Panzer volume 2.

http://www.ww2modelmaker.com/modelpages/DGpaniiig.htm

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/pjpz3.htm

This site says the whole series from E to H was uparmored - "The front wall of the bow armor in the Ausf. E to H was strengthened by addition of a 30mm armor plate (either screwed-on or welded-on)."

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/panzer3b.html

The Actung Panzer site seems to support that, refering to uparmoring of Es and Fs. (It also says late Gs had the 400mm track width of the Hs - of course production of the two overlapped for 5 months). But that may reflect confusion over the IV E and III H, I suppose - while the bolted G may simply be a mis-IDed 15th Panzer H. Or, all of them may have been overhauled-upgraded to the H level at the same time the guns were upgraded to 50L42.

To me it remains a Scottish "not proven". A clear indication the 2 pdr at 1500m losses were IIIs would settle the matter in my mind. But just "killed any DAK tank" at that range isn't quite enough.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Well that is certainly evidence. Any German side returns to show a reduction in IIIs (or IVs) running? (Not IDed as IIIs rather than IIs so not as dispositive as it might be on its own. It always helps when the claim refers to the specific vehicle one is trying to talk about).

That's your evidence? All very tertiary, certainly nothing definitive and nothing taht can be traced back to a primary source. when compared with British tests of ausf F/G armour during 1941 showing 3cmFH. The lack of waffenamet instructions for field-mods is also a big black hole to your pet idea of field-modified ausf G with more armour and standard G suspension. All "your" evidence could just as easily refer to and more likely to E/F/Gs being upgraded to H level at the factories/army depots, which was the standred practice.

Two PIII and one PIV totally lost and for some reason damaged tanks not recorded. (1998 Jentz)(Pz regt tended to pull their lighter tanks such as the PI/II away from tank vs tank engagements.

[ December 07, 2003, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Well that is certainly evidence. Any German side returns to show a reduction in IIIs (or IVs) running? (Not IDed as IIIs rather than IIs so not as dispositive as it might be on its own. It always helps when the claim refers to the specific vehicle one is trying to talk about).

That's your evidence? All very tertiary, certainly nothing definitive and nothing taht can be traced back to a primary source. when compared with British tests of ausf F/G armour during 1941 showing 3cmFH. The lack of waffenamet instructions for field-mods is also a big black hole to your pet idea of field-modified ausf G with more armour and standard G suspension. All "your" evidence could just as easily refer to and more likely to E/F/Gs being upgraded to H level at the factories/army depots, which was the standred practice.

Two PIII and one PIV totally lost and for some reason damaged tanks not recorded. (1998 Jentz)(Pz regt tended to pull their lighter tanks such as the PI/II away from tank vs tank engagements.

[ December 07, 2003, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Determinant]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I have now stopped playing desert tank battles, but Sicily and Italy are fun anyway

Well I'm sure you'll be sadly missed. And you didn't even get your knees brown.

There is too much Rain Man autism in the consideration of penetration figures. Let's take a more anthropological human view.

The 2lbr was, pound for pound, a very good gun. The British Army may not be the sharpest tool in the box but it is not entirely stupid. The decision to arm tanks with the 2lbr was not completely illogical. It was able to penetrate most enemy armour most of the time.

But it is not a killing round. Just because it can get through doesn't mean that it will kill a vehicle. The bigger the round the more the killing effect once it is 'under armour'. The problem with the 2lbr is that even if it gets through it isn't necessarily a show stopper.

With -SPOILERS- Ambush! the Quick Play Scenario on the CD-Rom is a good example. It is a swirling dog-fight fought in a dust storm.

I played as Axis in an unthinking way wanting to check out complaints about the '2lbr uber-gun'. The results were instructive since most of the Brits were shooting 2lbrs. The Allies lost 21 vehicles; Axis 9. Interestingly the Axis had 4 KIA while the Brits had 13. Most significantly the Brits had 9 tanks that brewed against a single Axis tank that had been hit by 75mm.

The lesson: Axis 50mm kills tanks. In contrast the 2lbr can penetrate and disable tanks but it is not a killer. Tanks that blow up and burn are base area repairs if not scrap. Tanks that are perforated with minor damage/crew casualties are fixable at formation level.

Thus we arrive at the anthropology: You are Brit crew. The Enemy only fight you at 1500m unless they have made a mistake. They outrange you. They co-ordinate fire. You can see your mates brewing up around you. You can see no perceptible effect from your fire on the enemy: neither hits nor kills. How do you feel now my blue-eyed boy?

There is nothing significantly wrong with the way that CMAK models the 2lbr.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I have now stopped playing desert tank battles, but Sicily and Italy are fun anyway

Well I'm sure you'll be sadly missed. And you didn't even get your knees brown.

There is too much Rain Man autism in the consideration of penetration figures. Let's take a more anthropological human view.

The 2lbr was, pound for pound, a very good gun. The British Army may not be the sharpest tool in the box but it is not entirely stupid. The decision to arm tanks with the 2lbr was not completely illogical. It was able to penetrate most enemy armour most of the time.

But it is not a killing round. Just because it can get through doesn't mean that it will kill a vehicle. The bigger the round the more the killing effect once it is 'under armour'. The problem with the 2lbr is that even if it gets through it isn't necessarily a show stopper.

With -SPOILERS- Ambush! the Quick Play Scenario on the CD-Rom is a good example. It is a swirling dog-fight fought in a dust storm.

I played as Axis in an unthinking way wanting to check out complaints about the '2lbr uber-gun'. The results were instructive since most of the Brits were shooting 2lbrs. The Allies lost 21 vehicles; Axis 9. Interestingly the Axis had 4 KIA while the Brits had 13. Most significantly the Brits had 9 tanks that brewed against a single Axis tank that had been hit by 75mm.

The lesson: Axis 50mm kills tanks. In contrast the 2lbr can penetrate and disable tanks but it is not a killer. Tanks that blow up and burn are base area repairs if not scrap. Tanks that are perforated with minor damage/crew casualties are fixable at formation level.

Thus we arrive at the anthropology: You are Brit crew. The Enemy only fight you at 1500m unless they have made a mistake. They outrange you. They co-ordinate fire. You can see your mates brewing up around you. You can see no perceptible effect from your fire on the enemy: neither hits nor kills. How do you feel now my blue-eyed boy?

There is nothing significantly wrong with the way that CMAK models the 2lbr.

[EZPickens]

Of course the 2lb can knock out a Panzer III, even the uparmoured versions, factory and field modded alike.

The German "short" 50mm found in most of these vehicles had SLIGHT edges in both range and penetration; it also had a better round in the APCR (which was limited in quantity, BTW).

Put an equal number of PZKW IIIh (a short-50mm derivative) and Crusader II in a gunfight and the Panzers will win everytime. The trouble for the German player will be that they will take significant, most-likely unacceptable losses in the process.

That's not how the DAK won battles in the desert, BTW. They were outnumbered and couldn't win a battle of attrition (as El Alamein proved), rather it was their anti-tank guns, 88's and long 50's alike, that ate the Brits up.

The PAK 38 was deployed directly in support of German KGs, right up with the Panzers, and in a fight it was difficult to see from a buttoned-up tank. It was also (wrongly) perceived to be less of a threat by Allied tank crews.

So, a tanker given a choice of targeting a Pzkw or a "light" gun would go for the (easier to hit) tank. And of course this whole situation was exacerbated by the 2lbrs lack of HE.

We see, then, a failure to mesh doctrine with ordnance that had disasterous consequneces for the Commonwealth through much of the desert war.

The introduction of 75mm armed Grants changed this equation, BTW, and the tactical dominance of the DAK, if not ended, did turn the contests into the battle of attrition that I made note of earlier, one that the Germans couldn't win.

And that is, IMO, the way that it was.

EZ

[ December 08, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

[EZPickens]

Of course the 2lb can knock out a Panzer III, even the uparmoured versions, factory and field modded alike.

The German "short" 50mm found in most of these vehicles had SLIGHT edges in both range and penetration; it also had a better round in the APCR (which was limited in quantity, BTW).

Put an equal number of PZKW IIIh (a short-50mm derivative) and Crusader II in a gunfight and the Panzers will win everytime. The trouble for the German player will be that they will take significant, most-likely unacceptable losses in the process.

That's not how the DAK won battles in the desert, BTW. They were outnumbered and couldn't win a battle of attrition (as El Alamein proved), rather it was their anti-tank guns, 88's and long 50's alike, that ate the Brits up.

The PAK 38 was deployed directly in support of German KGs, right up with the Panzers, and in a fight it was difficult to see from a buttoned-up tank. It was also (wrongly) perceived to be less of a threat by Allied tank crews.

So, a tanker given a choice of targeting a Pzkw or a "light" gun would go for the (easier to hit) tank. And of course this whole situation was exacerbated by the 2lbrs lack of HE.

We see, then, a failure to mesh doctrine with ordnance that had disasterous consequneces for the Commonwealth through much of the desert war.

The introduction of 75mm armed Grants changed this equation, BTW, and the tactical dominance of the DAK, if not ended, did turn the contests into the battle of attrition that I made note of earlier, one that the Germans couldn't win.

And that is, IMO, the way that it was.

EZ

[ December 08, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

[The Green Rascal]

There is nothing significantly wrong with the way that CMAK models the 2lbr.

GAAAK! Not only is there nothing significantly wrong with the way CMAK models the 2pdr, CMAK models it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY. I thought we had clearly established that earlier :mad:

I have tested, I have quoted, and if somone can come back with something concrete which flys in the face of the evidence given, I'll certainly reconsider. However the PZIII vulnerability at long range is ahistorical, check my stats if you think 2pdrs don't hurt them in CMAK.

Let's have some good sources saying PZIIIs actually were killed frontally over 500m to redress the balance please.

[The Green Rascal]

There is nothing significantly wrong with the way that CMAK models the 2lbr.

GAAAK! Not only is there nothing significantly wrong with the way CMAK models the 2pdr, CMAK models it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY. I thought we had clearly established that earlier :mad:

I have tested, I have quoted, and if somone can come back with something concrete which flys in the face of the evidence given, I'll certainly reconsider. However the PZIII vulnerability at long range is ahistorical, check my stats if you think 2pdrs don't hurt them in CMAK.

Let's have some good sources saying PZIIIs actually were killed frontally over 500m to redress the balance please.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I have tested, I have quoted, and if somone can come back with something concrete which flys in the face of the evidence given, I'll certainly reconsider.

But, dear boy, you haven't produced any evidence. No-one has. No-one ever does. Just stop and think about what 'evidence' would mean. It's the usual speculation from partial sources. AKA your best guess as to what represents reality. For my money CMAK still feels 'about right'.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I have tested, I have quoted, and if somone can come back with something concrete which flys in the face of the evidence given, I'll certainly reconsider.

But, dear boy, you haven't produced any evidence. No-one has. No-one ever does. Just stop and think about what 'evidence' would mean. It's the usual speculation from partial sources. AKA your best guess as to what represents reality. For my money CMAK still feels 'about right'.

[JasonC]

Just the stuff it was easy to give links to. I've read a number of other accounts saying similar things, but I'd have to run to the library to find citations for you. Obviously they could be wrong too.

2 Pz IIIs total losses, and penetrations reported at 1500 yards and under - it is something. Not earth shattering, but something.

What about 5th light's 2nd day fight in Battleaxe in June? Any reports of long range kills from that one? They didn't fight with 15th PD until the next day iirc. (15th was in it from day one). What I've seen says the Germans lost 12 tanks overall. If those included IIIs and occurred mostly in 5th light rather than 15th panzer, it would also be evidence of unimproved Gs.

[JasonC]

Just the stuff it was easy to give links to. I've read a number of other accounts saying similar things, but I'd have to run to the library to find citations for you. Obviously they could be wrong too.

2 Pz IIIs total losses, and penetrations reported at 1500 yards and under - it is something. Not earth shattering, but something.

What about 5th light's 2nd day fight in Battleaxe in June? Any reports of long range kills from that one? They didn't fight with 15th PD until the next day iirc. (15th was in it from day one). What I've seen says the Germans lost 12 tanks overall. If those included IIIs and occurred mostly in 5th light rather than 15th panzer, it would also be evidence of unimproved Gs.

[Mark Gallear]

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

Any chance of seeing this table 4.1.2 and which book does it come from?

Found these figures in the orginal Featherstone book Tank Battles in Miniature A wargame's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942

AP muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps and armour pentration of 57 at 500 yards at 30 degrees

For APCBC introduced in Sept 1941 it is only 2,600 feet per sec with a slightly better pentration 57.5mm at 500 yards at 30 degrees.

Most sources list the 2pdr as being supplied with both rounds. Clearly APCBC was an attempt to improve the 2pdrs pentration at least until the 6pdr took over. Featherstone says the round was intoduced after AP was found to break up when hitting German face hardened armour.

Does anybody know if APCBC pentration will fall off faster than plain AP at longer ranges than 500 yards becomes of its lower fps? (I understand that the round although lighter is less aerodynamic despite the extra cap meant to make it so?)

Debate seems to be breaking down into we are right you are wrong, chaps ! The evidence (yes, it is evidence) presented above as well as the battle reports seems to suggest a marginal chance of pentration at 800 yards on certain tank locations which is not what CMAK is giving - no matter how noble its creators are .

[Mark Gallear]

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

Any chance of seeing this table 4.1.2 and which book does it come from?

Found these figures in the orginal Featherstone book Tank Battles in Miniature A wargame's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942

AP muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps and armour pentration of 57 at 500 yards at 30 degrees

For APCBC introduced in Sept 1941 it is only 2,600 feet per sec with a slightly better pentration 57.5mm at 500 yards at 30 degrees.

Most sources list the 2pdr as being supplied with both rounds. Clearly APCBC was an attempt to improve the 2pdrs pentration at least until the 6pdr took over. Featherstone says the round was intoduced after AP was found to break up when hitting German face hardened armour.

Does anybody know if APCBC pentration will fall off faster than plain AP at longer ranges than 500 yards becomes of its lower fps? (I understand that the round although lighter is less aerodynamic despite the extra cap meant to make it so?)

Debate seems to be breaking down into we are right you are wrong, chaps ! The evidence (yes, it is evidence) presented above as well as the battle reports seems to suggest a marginal chance of pentration at 800 yards on certain tank locations which is not what CMAK is giving - no matter how noble its creators are .

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

Any chance of seeing this table 4.1.2 and which book does it come from?

</font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

Any chance of seeing this table 4.1.2 and which book does it come from?

</font>

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[quote

Found these figures in the orginal Featherstone book Tank Battles in Miniature A wargame's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942

AP muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps and armour pentration of 57 at 500 yards at 30 degrees

For APCBC introduced in Sept 1941 it is only 2,600 feet per sec with a slightly better pentration 57.5mm at 500 yards at 30 degrees.

Most sources list the 2pdr as being supplied with both rounds. Clearly APCBC was an attempt to improve the 2pdrs pentration at least until the 6pdr took over. Featherstone says the round was intoduced after AP was found to break up when hitting German face hardened armour.

Does anybody know if APCBC pentration will fall off faster than plain AP at longer ranges than 500 yards becomes of its lower fps? (I understand that the round although lighter is less aerodynamic despite the extra cap meant to make it so?)

Debate seems to be breaking down into we are right you are wrong, chaps ! The evidence (yes, it is evidence) presented above as well as the battle reports seems to suggest a marginal chance of pentration at 800 yards on certain tank locations which is not what CMAK is giving - no matter how noble its creators are .

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[quote

Found these figures in the orginal Featherstone book Tank Battles in Miniature A wargame's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942

AP muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps and armour pentration of 57 at 500 yards at 30 degrees

For APCBC introduced in Sept 1941 it is only 2,600 feet per sec with a slightly better pentration 57.5mm at 500 yards at 30 degrees.

Most sources list the 2pdr as being supplied with both rounds. Clearly APCBC was an attempt to improve the 2pdrs pentration at least until the 6pdr took over. Featherstone says the round was intoduced after AP was found to break up when hitting German face hardened armour.

Does anybody know if APCBC pentration will fall off faster than plain AP at longer ranges than 500 yards becomes of its lower fps? (I understand that the round although lighter is less aerodynamic despite the extra cap meant to make it so?)

Debate seems to be breaking down into we are right you are wrong, chaps ! The evidence (yes, it is evidence) presented above as well as the battle reports seems to suggest a marginal chance of pentration at 800 yards on certain tank locations which is not what CMAK is giving - no matter how noble its creators are .

[The Green Rascal]

Well this thread has been kicking around for a week now and seems to have finished. I am disappointed that no-one from BFC could be bothered to take the time to comment in it, although they have been posting around it. There was a lot of good points here, and one or two questions which would not have taken too much time to answer.

FWIW I returned CMAK to the store today, before their no-quibbles returns policy expired. I purchased it specifically for the Desert War battles, having played the hell out of CMBO and CMBB, so an accurate simulation of 2pdrs v's Panzers, and the resultant tactics required, was the core component of the game for me.

If it is ever patched, or the code is released into the public domain (also FWIW) I'll certainly re-purchase. However, as there seems to be no interest in even discussing the issues presented, I ain't holding my breath.

[The Green Rascal]

Well this thread has been kicking around for a week now and seems to have finished. I am disappointed that no-one from BFC could be bothered to take the time to comment in it, although they have been posting around it. There was a lot of good points here, and one or two questions which would not have taken too much time to answer.

FWIW I returned CMAK to the store today, before their no-quibbles returns policy expired. I purchased it specifically for the Desert War battles, having played the hell out of CMBO and CMBB, so an accurate simulation of 2pdrs v's Panzers, and the resultant tactics required, was the core component of the game for me.

If it is ever patched, or the code is released into the public domain (also FWIW) I'll certainly re-purchase. However, as there seems to be no interest in even discussing the issues presented, I ain't holding my breath.

[EZPickens]

I wanted to post this so prospective buyers would have some idea about what kind of results 2lb vs PzIII combat is producing.

I set up a flat/dirt map drawn to approx. 1200 meters in depth. I set up several different OOB's (detailed below) for the Germans, and at the opposite end of the map located an equal number of Crusader II "tubes."

I then ran tests for each OOB, at a range that never went below 1000 meters for any single tube. The test consisted of my simply setting back and hitting the "GO" button; I never interfered in any way. I also ran each test 5 times for each OOB to try and reduce the possibility of freak-results.

Here's what I found...

Kill Ratios (Br losses/German losses)

30xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 4/1 (avg)

30xPzIIIH vs 30xCrusaderII = 8/1 (avg)

15xPzIIIH/15xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 6/1 (avg)

15xPzIIIH/10xPzIIIG/5xPAK38 vs 30xCrusaderII= 10/1 (avg)

Given the fact that the CrusaderII has a rate of fire that is approximately 50% higher than the PzIII's gun (which certainly does enhance the chances of the 2lb'r striking home), I don't understand what the beef is here.

Armour play in CMAK is fun and well modeled, IMO. Its a great little game for those interested in the desert battles.

EZ

BTW: The Br armour did not once take a swipe at the PAK38's deployed in the last of the tests; this is but another indication that CMAK is well modeled in its use of AI doctrine. I'd strongly suggest a gentlemen's agreement among players in multiplayer games that an Allied player should never engage a PAK38 with a 2lb as long as there are Pz available for targeting at a like range.

(edited last line of data table to reflect composition of Br force)

[ December 10, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

[EZPickens]

I wanted to post this so prospective buyers would have some idea about what kind of results 2lb vs PzIII combat is producing.

I set up a flat/dirt map drawn to approx. 1200 meters in depth. I set up several different OOB's (detailed below) for the Germans, and at the opposite end of the map located an equal number of Crusader II "tubes."

I then ran tests for each OOB, at a range that never went below 1000 meters for any single tube. The test consisted of my simply setting back and hitting the "GO" button; I never interfered in any way. I also ran each test 5 times for each OOB to try and reduce the possibility of freak-results.

Here's what I found...

Kill Ratios (Br losses/German losses)

30xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 4/1 (avg)

30xPzIIIH vs 30xCrusaderII = 8/1 (avg)

15xPzIIIH/15xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 6/1 (avg)

15xPzIIIH/10xPzIIIG/5xPAK38 vs 30xCrusaderII= 10/1 (avg)

Given the fact that the CrusaderII has a rate of fire that is approximately 50% higher than the PzIII's gun (which certainly does enhance the chances of the 2lb'r striking home), I don't understand what the beef is here.

Armour play in CMAK is fun and well modeled, IMO. Its a great little game for those interested in the desert battles.

EZ

BTW: The Br armour did not once take a swipe at the PAK38's deployed in the last of the tests; this is but another indication that CMAK is well modeled in its use of AI doctrine. I'd strongly suggest a gentlemen's agreement among players in multiplayer games that an Allied player should never engage a PAK38 with a 2lb as long as there are Pz available for targeting at a like range.

(edited last line of data table to reflect composition of Br force)

[ December 10, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

[rune]

EZ,

You are correct...it is not modelled wrong. Here is a nice quote I found.

Intelligence was slow in establishing “the extent to which the British weapons were inferior to the Germans as it was not until enemy weapons were captured and sent back to Britain for analysis that it became apparent that “extra armour plates were face hardened - to an extent which made the German tanks invulnerable to frontal penetration by the British two pounder7.

The footnote mention it was the nose armour, and NOT the turret armour.

Rune