what's the problem with the soviet SU-100

[the red son]

Does anyone noticed that the SU-100 have an armor peircing of 1 :? :?

this is bizzare because the 85mm soviet gun have a peircing of 2 :?: :!: :?:

can anyone enlight me :?: :?:

thank you.

 

[hithero]

Beats me, a quich search found this good site for Russian gun penetration and finds, as expected, that the 100mm is more effective.
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet.html#index Maybe Agis will update in the Soviet supplement.

 

[Agis]

Well the 100mm is IMO more effective since it has a D10+4 DD and Multihit while the 85mm only got a D10+3.

Gun performance in WaW is the combination of range + DD + Traits.

Please rethink the performance now while re-evaluating the weapon stats:
100mm D-10 anti-tank gun 60” D10+4 Lethal Zone/1“,Multihit, Piercing/1, Slow
85mm L54 anti-tank gun 48” D10+3 Lethal Zone/1”, Piercing/2, Slow

I like the 100mm with +4 and Multihit more... :wink:

 

[hithero]

Thats the biggest problem with these rules, all these stats combine to give one roll for accuracy, penetration and to damage the target. But if the 100mm gun has better penetration than the 85mm then this stat certainly shouldn't be worse whichever way you want to look at it.

 

[Agis]

Thats the biggest problem with these rules, all these stats combine to give one roll for accuracy, penetration and to damage the target. But if the 100mm gun has better penetration than the 85mm then this stat certainly shouldn't be worse whichever way you want to look at it.

To represent AP only with the Piercing trait would be IMO futile when looking at the huge range of actual armour penetration values of WWII guns. Please do not be too literal with the traits! 8)
IMO the Evolution system is flexible enough to handle it by the combination of stats and traits.

And somehow I still fail to see why the 100mm is worse then the 85mm... :wink:

 

[Alexb83]

And somehow I still fail to see why the 100mm is worse then the 85mm... :wink:

Because it does not modify the armour save of the target to the same extent as the 85mm round.

Yes, it is more likely to cause an armour test (by +1). Then again it is less likely to result in an unsaved test. At the very best it is no better than the 85mm in terms of killing potential just on the back of that fact.

It's an interesting point though - how would you stat up a 17pdr APDS vs a 17pdr APCR shell? Same gun, very different ammunition and 'method of destruction' so to speak. An APDS shell has much more chance of penetrating armour, but much lower chance of killing the crew or critically damaging the tank (less/no chance of spalling, reduced concussion etc. etc.)

But in the case of the 100mm and 85mm gun, during WW2 both used only ballistic capped high explosive shells.

It comes back to a similar point I once raised regarding combining hull and dodge scores to represent fighters in ACTA - muddling things up like this makes for an inconsistent system from the bottom up. You cannot say 'this fighter is harder to hit, so we will give it a high hull score' and then also give it a high dodge score to represent the same thing - it's double discounting and throws things way out of whack.

The problem is that there are any number of factors which affect whether a shell will blow up a tank (assuming it hits it in the first place) - and none of the weapon stats clearly corellate to those factors. You've got muzzle velocity, weight of the shell, composition of the shell, type of the shell, type of the armour, thickness of the armour, range, angle of impact...

Agis makes a good point that you can't be too literal with the traits - simply because real life numbers have to be shoehorned in around them. The roll simultaneously represents your chance to hit, and /'how well' you hit/. And /then/ you have a somewhat arbitrary roll for the armour, which is modified by the notional 'type' of ammunition you're using.
With real life stats, for direct comparison, you need to take an even hand in lining things up. In this case, the ammunition types are the same, so the piercing stat should be the same - the difference is in the range (rightly) and in the size of the shell and the weight of high explosive it holds (hence multihit) meaning that /if/ it hits and /if/ it penetrates the armour, it will fundamentally do more damage.

 

[Mr Evil]

maybe but the 100 has more chance of scoring a kill and negating armour altogether !!!

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

And with multihit does 2 hits on an unsaved hit roll, or 4 hits on a kill...

 

[SgtHulka]

Konigstiker is Target 9+/Armor Save 2+/Kill 13+.

The SU-85 has a (0.4x0.5=) 20% chance of scoring 1 kill.
The SU-85 has a 10% chance of scoring 2 kills.
The SU-85 has a 0% chance of scoring 4 kills (knock-out).

So that's a 30% chance of damaging the Konigstiger.

The SU-100 has a 0% chance of scoring 1 kill.
The SU-100 has a (0.4x.33=) 13.2% chance of scoring 2 kills.
The SU-100 has a 20% chance of scoring 4 kills (knock-out).

So that's a 33.2% chance of damaging the Konigstiger...better than the SU-85.

A Tiger and Panther are both Target 9+/Armor Save 3+/Kill 13+

The SU-85 has a (0.4x0.67=) 26.8% chance of scoring 1 kill.
The SU-85 has a 10% chance of scoring 2 kills.
The SU-85 has a 0% chance of scoring 4 kills (knock-out).

So that's a 35.8% chance of damaging a Tiger or Panther.

The SU-100 has a 0% chance of scoring 1 kill.
The SU-100 has a (0.4x0.5=) 20% chance of scoring 2 kills.
The SU-100 has a 20% chance of scoring 4 kills.

So that's a 40% chance of damaging a Tiger or Panther. Again, better than the SU-85.

A Panzer IV is Target 8+/Armor Save 4+/Kill 12+ (using errata stats)

The SU-85 has a (0.4x0.83=) 33.2% chance of scoring 1 kill.
The SU-85 has a 20% chance of scoring 2 kills (knock-out).

That's a 53.2% chance of damaging the Panzer IV.

The SU-100 has a (0.4x.67=26.8%+30%) 56.8% chance of scoring 2 kills (knock-out...4 kills is the same as 2 because it's overkill).

The SU-100 not only has a better chance of damaging the Panzer IV but every time it damages the Panzer it kills it.

The SU-100 looks better to me in all instances.

Let's look at the T-34/85 with its co-axial machinegun...

The T-34/85 has a (0.4x0.5=) 20% chance of scoring 1 kill on a Konigstiger.
The T-34/85 has a 20% chance of scoring 2 kills on a Konigstiger.

In this instance the T-34/85 has a better chance than either tank destroyer of damaging the Konigstiger.

The T-34/85 has a (0.4x.67=) 26.8% chance of scoring 1 kill on a Panther or Tiger.
The T-24/85 has a 20% chance of scoring 2 kills on a Panther or Tiger.

Once again, the T-34/85 has a better chance of damaging the Panther or Tiger than either tank destroyer.

The T-34/85 has a (0.4x0.83=) 33.2% chance of scoring 1 kill against a Panzer IV.
The T-34/85 has a 30% chance of scoring 2 kills against a panzer.

In all instances, the T-34/85 has the better accuracy. However, the ability of the SU-100 to do more damage, and its 30 point discount, may make it a more attractive option.

(the probability calculations used above were learned from some random website so if they're wrong let me know)

 

[the red son]

thank you all,

but the su-100 is a tank hunter and i think it should have at least the same armor penetration as the 85mm gun due to the use of the same round.

i'm sure that all russian would agree beacause the german tanks are really a pain in the a.. :evil:

thaks

 

[Agis]

Lorcan Nagle, Mr Evil and SgtHulka sums it up better then I could ever tell.

 

[Alexb83]

The maths looks right Sgthulka - but the point (that I come back to) was the disparity between the 20% chance to hit on the SU-85 in case 1, vs. the 13.2% chance for similar (admittedly doubled) effect in the SU-100.

Interesting point of reference:

http://battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=33&Itemid=49&lang=en

We are particularly interested in the numbers relating to the D5- and D10-T obviously - at all ranges the certified penetration numbers for the 100mm are higher. The muzzle velocity and shell weight are also higher, but fundamentally the type of shell is the same. The issue here is what system you use for representing that in the gun stat-line.

Personally I don't see why the /piercing value wasn't left the same, as well as the addition of multihit and a nominal increase in the 'to hit' modifier (+4 vs +3). Perhaps Agis can explain his rationale, perhaps he's not so inclined.

 

[Agis]

Perhaps Agis can explain his rationale, perhaps he's not so inclined.

The reasoning is simple: Look at SgtHulkas "math" and you got it! :wink:
I had very similar calculations the eventually led to the stats established.

And please do not compare a T-34/85 with its co-axial machine gun to a long range anti tank gun. It is like comparing apples and peaches. If you compare, please only compare the guns! 8)
What the good Sgt has not mentioned is the range! With Co-Ax you have to be within range of the MG to benefit from the to hit bonus...

Nuff said, on to gaming... :wink:

 

[Alexb83]

Perhaps Agis can explain his rationale, perhaps he's not so inclined.

The reasoning is simple: Look at SgtHulkas "math" and you got it! :wink:
I had very similar calculations the eventually led to the stats established.

And please do not compare a T-34/85 with its co-axial machine gun to a long range anti tank gun. It is like comparing apples and peaches. If you compare, please only compare the guns! 8)
What the good Sgt has not mentioned is the range! With Co-Ax you have to be within range of the MG to benefit from the to hit bonus...

Nuff said, on to gaming... :wink:

Here is my point though - SgtHulkas math shows that the 85mm is 6.8 percent more likely to score an un-saved hit than the 100mm against any target.
I'm interested in the reasoning you apply to the pushing and pulling of the various numbers; the dice value, the to-hit modifier and the /piercing trait.
The guns used the same optics, same ammunition type - the only things that should differentiate them are the range (which does) and the sheer destructive power (multihit) - why the shift in /piercing?

 

[dsfrankevo]

I am really glad to see an active and healthy discussion

- even a certain level of disagreement

- without resorting to flaming or name calling that is all to common on other boards

I think it speaks volumes for the maturity of all involved & is very refreshing

I also like that the points everyone makes are well thought out and can be considered valid from the posters point of view/ design perspective

- to weigh in on the tank hunter issue - I think the multihit trait increases the lethality nicely & doesn't overbalance - I'm glad to see something on the Russian side with multihit

 

[Alexb83]

Thanks dsfrakevo - this is an interesting discussion, I know that's how I'm approaching it and nothing more.

The point isn't to pick apart how things have been done (not maliciously in any case) - it's simply to try and come to an understanding of how they have been, so that you can work from a common frame of reference.

I would hope that with enough effort what you should be able to do is reach a point where (within certain bounds), any gun, of any sort - any vehicle, or piece of equipment, should be able to be inserted into a system with a 'value' that equates to anything else with the same stats, or equivalent destructive potential.

The problem is, unlike a system like SST where you can invent your own numbers - here we are trying to reverse engineer real life numbers (many of which are hard enough to compare - take the different methodologies for the Royal Armaments, USSR and German AT Penetration tests in literature!) back into a system that really wasn't designed for them.

 

[Agis]

why the shift in /piercing?

I was checking all the real life AP values of all guns involved, then compared them, then decided how to represent them in the game.
I needed some more margin on the top end for the nasty German guns, therefore only a slight increase in destructive potential (Multihit) and a decrease in Piercing.
Then the testing , the re-writing, then testing etc etc etc...
You get the picture.

So all in all: the above reasons (SgtHulka) plus the fact that piercing is IMO not that important. Check the saves of most vehicles. Even a -1 is very effective since all saves are done with only a D6!
:wink:

 

[Alexb83]

See, that's interesting and comes back to the basics and possible limitations of the system.

Sticking with a d6 only for armour saves is a real limitation to the system - unless you go to 1+ saves and below (and stick with using /piercing as the modifier). That way nothing short of a piercing/2 weapon could damage a unit with a 0+ armour save.

Using your example of holding a margin for the guns, if you're limiting a 1+ or 2+ to the 'best of WW2', then where does that leave post-war tanks in the same system?
What about moving to a d10, if going to 0+ or even negative values doesn't sound tidy enough?

Not only does this allow for a broader scale of armour values (and that's pretty important in WW2, given the general trend for quality and quantity of armour). Also it allows for a much broader range of armour penetration values, based solely on the /piercing value. (e.g. CHARM II sits somewhere around piercing /9).

 

[Mr Evil]

id put this forward....

armour peircing isnt ideal for tank destroying, you do not wish your shell to go into a tank and out the other side befor it detonates, you would rather your shell penatrated 90% of the armour befor exsploding to cause as much damage as possable...

now you could put it as the the lack of penatration represents the shell going through the enemy tank doing little to no real damage, or its lower as it is designed to detonate inside the tank so heavy armour plates present more of a challenge.

alternativly just play the game and enjoy it and if you dont like somthing then dont use it...

 

[Alexb83]

No indeed - which is why things like multihit are important, and differentiate 'mere' kinetic penetrators from capped high explosive shells (one is simply a very small, very dense dart designed to defeat armour - the other a pointy bomb designed to either penetrate it and explode, or partially penetrate it and explode).

Post war developments, at least by the British (even up to the present day) favoured HESH ammunition, which is designed almost explicitly /not/ to penetrate the armour of the target, but to mince everyone and everything inside by causing spalling.

The point I was aiming for was consistency and differentiation between which 'stat' or weapon attribute is being used to represent which real life figure.

How do you differentiate between two shells fired from the same gun, of very different types? Or in this case - similar shells fired from different guns? The only real differentiating factors between the 100mm and 85mm APBC rounds being compared are: one is bigger (by extension it has greater mass) than the other, contains more explosive, and goes out of the end of the gun faster.

Both shells were of the type designed to partially or fully penetrate the armour before exploding.

So the range is higher. So there's a further +1 modifier 'to hit' (I can even buy the rationale that this represents a greater chance for example, of 'hitting' rather than glancing off) - so it has the potential to do more damage with each hit because it has more explosive (multihit).

But why, with all these other things being improved, is one decreased? Again I posit that it should've remained the same, at the very least.