Alert


If your name looks like spam your account will be deleted.

1914-1918

Armour rating specifications?

Armour rating specifications?

Postby Fitz » 16 Apr 2017

Is it specified anywhere exactly what the armour ratings mean? What exactly is A armour, or K, or M?

I'm primarily interested in the interwar period — not covered by any of the official information I've seen thus far — so I need to develop vehicle details for things like the Independent, the Vickers Mediums, and the Burford-Kegresse.
User avatar
Fitz
Mayday
 
Posts: 757

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby zippyzed zoom » 16 Apr 2017

Search for armour stats for your relevant vehicles and cross reference them to comparable armour thickness of represented vehicles.
zippyzed zoom
Professor Dent
 
Posts: 26

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby Fitz » 16 Apr 2017

So that's a no then?
User avatar
Fitz
Mayday
 
Posts: 757

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby Greebs » 16 Apr 2017

I don't think there is a conversion chart for how many MM of armour is equivalent to each letter... because armour isn't that straightforward, and neither is game design. I mean just on a single facing of a tank, you have the Lower Glacis, the Upper Glacis, the Turret Front, and whether or not there is a Mantlet. Each of them can have different armour thicknesses, and the protection afforded by that thickness can be varied by the slope or angling of the armour, or even how that armour was manufactured (I suspect the rules aren't quite that granular...) - all of this is compressed into a singular value.

It's likely you'll have to compare the raw data for the machines you want to stat with those of their contemporaries that made it into the ruleset, and extrapolate from there. Though it's likely from looking at such early war machines, you'll be using an awful lot of 'N's and 'O's...
Greebs
Dr No
 
Posts: 1032
Medals: 6
Armour Campaigner (1) Terrain2 Campaigner (1) 60mm campaigner (1) xmas15 campaigner (1) xmas14 campaigner (1) 2015 build campaigner (1)

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby fred » 17 Apr 2017

My first thought was that you could start with O across the board, then give the odd N for slightly better kit.

But you may want to spread out the armour values a bit more - as you will only have a relatively small set of values to play with. Which would allow a bit more differentiation between units and guns.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the early AFVs were barely MG bullet proof. So you may want to allow MG fire to have a chance of a kill?
fred
Out of work Henchman
 
Posts: 9

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby The Waxed Moustache » 18 Apr 2017

The armour ratings are relative within the game system; they are not mathematical equations from millimetres to letters. Think of the T34 or Panther, for example, where the glacis angle made all the difference.

As for spreading out the armour values, there are already 15 different classifications plus soft skin. Again in relation to game design, I'm not sure how many more your could have before you compromise playability.

You might, for example, wish to have different values for body, turret, top, and bottom armour in addition to the existing stats. However, this would just add layers of complexity to the system, requiring extra rolls to determine which part is hit, different effects for different damaged parts, and so on.

As for AP HMGs, just give them an AP of 1 at close ranges if you feel strongly about it (see IABSM's rules, for example).
User avatar
The Waxed Moustache
Vargas
 
Posts: 84

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby Piers » 18 Apr 2017

While MGs may penetrate light armour the relative small size of the round and it's damage on way through will mean the chances of any serious damage are limited at best, hence why we don't let them do damage as on a d6 system the chance is out of all proportion to reality and suddenly MG fire becomes another 'lucky' chance. Then can pin at close ranges and that seems to be enough to represent such fire on armoured targets for us.
 ‘Landed. Killed Germans. F***ed off.’ - Major Anders Lassen's operational report to the Admiralty.
'...its not a realistic expectation, that you can use a tank as a sort of big 'fruit-squashing' machine' - Woz
User avatar
Piers
Dominic Greene
 
Posts: 23444
Medals: 41
Capt Campaigner (1) Cav Campaigner (1) Arty 1st place (1) Comm 2nd place (1) Sur1 campaigner (1) Afloat Campaigner (1)
England Campaigner (1) Flak Campaigner (1) Comms Campaigner (1) Armour 3rd place (1) Terrain2 1st place (1) fortified 1st place (1)
Recce 2nd place (1) Leader Campaigner (1) Casualty 1st place (1) Female Campaigner (1) Sniper Campaigner (1) 40mm 2nd place (1)
Wings Campaigner (1) POW Campaigner (1) Truck Campaigner (1) 30mm 1st place (1) Red Campaigner (1) Green 1st place (1)
AntiTank Campaigner (1) Easter14 2nd place (1) 60mm 2nd place (1) Lib Minis 1st (1) Terrain Campaigner (1) Brit Minis 2nd place (1)
Scen1 Campaigner (1) Big Game 2010 (1) 2010 Build (1) 2011 Build (1) 2012 Build (1) 2013 Build 3rd place (1)
xmas15 2nd place (1) xmas14 campaigner (1) 2014 build 3rd place (1) 2015 build 2nd place (1) 2016 build 2nd place (1)

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby fred » 18 Apr 2017

In as only suggesting spreading the armour values (and MG effects) specifically for the interwar period. Where the best armour will only be an M probably. And AP values will probably top out at 6 or 7.

For WWII itself the current range of values is fine. It gives enough granularity without being overly complex.

The same with MG effects, the current system is good for WWII but going back a bit where armour quality was poorer then it might be worth considering.

So this was very much a suggestion for this interwar period question.
fred
Out of work Henchman
 
Posts: 9

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby Piers » 18 Apr 2017

Yep... I can see inter war would be a bit different... You'd want to rescaled things
User avatar
Piers
Dominic Greene
 
Posts: 23444
Medals: 41
Capt Campaigner (1) Cav Campaigner (1) Arty 1st place (1) Comm 2nd place (1) Sur1 campaigner (1) Afloat Campaigner (1)
England Campaigner (1) Flak Campaigner (1) Comms Campaigner (1) Armour 3rd place (1) Terrain2 1st place (1) fortified 1st place (1)
Recce 2nd place (1) Leader Campaigner (1) Casualty 1st place (1) Female Campaigner (1) Sniper Campaigner (1) 40mm 2nd place (1)
Wings Campaigner (1) POW Campaigner (1) Truck Campaigner (1) 30mm 1st place (1) Red Campaigner (1) Green 1st place (1)
AntiTank Campaigner (1) Easter14 2nd place (1) 60mm 2nd place (1) Lib Minis 1st (1) Terrain Campaigner (1) Brit Minis 2nd place (1)
Scen1 Campaigner (1) Big Game 2010 (1) 2010 Build (1) 2011 Build (1) 2012 Build (1) 2013 Build 3rd place (1)
xmas15 2nd place (1) xmas14 campaigner (1) 2014 build 3rd place (1) 2015 build 2nd place (1) 2016 build 2nd place (1)

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby Martello Towers » 18 Apr 2017

Fitz wrote:I'm primarily interested in the interwar period — not covered by any of the official information I've seen thus far — so I need to develop vehicle details for things like the Independent, the Vickers Mediums, and the Burford-Kegresse.

What's the plan for these? Battlegroup 1938?
User avatar
Martello Towers
Rosa Klebb
 
Posts: 57

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby clive2 » 18 Apr 2017

Martello Towers wrote:
Fitz wrote:I'm primarily interested in the interwar period — not covered by any of the official information I've seen thus far — so I need to develop vehicle details for things like the Independent, the Vickers Mediums, and the Burford-Kegresse.

What's the plan for these? Battlegroup 1938?

More like 1928 for the Independent and the BK
Last edited by clive2 on 19 Apr 2017, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
clive2
Whisper
 
Posts: 294

Re: Armour rating specifications?

Postby Fitz » 19 Apr 2017

Martello Towers wrote:What's the plan for these? Battlegroup 1938?


A bit earlier than that, though I'm not rigid about it — I tend to cut off just before the Spanish Civil War. The period from about 1920 to 1935 is most interesting to me; at the beginning of that decade and a half there was still a lot of WW1 kit about the place (the peace was only two years old, after all), and by the end of it we're starting to see identifiably WW2-ish stuff appearing, and in between, some truly odd equipment was tried out. At the beginning of the period the company was still the smallest common tactical unit; by the end of it, it was the platoon.
User avatar
Fitz
Mayday
 
Posts: 757


Return to Battlegroup Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Erik Alt, skip and 5 guests