WW2 tank rules

[petedavies]

This post is in response to a question from fred in the "what are you currently reading" thread – to avoid hijacking that ongoing discussion I thought I'd move to a new one.

I am not entirely sure what I am trying to express, and am aware that I could easily be on a wrong track anyway – so the disclaimer is "for discussion purposes only", I don't have a well-though-out position on this!

The only way I can think of to get started is to describe a few things I'd like from an ideal set of WW2 tank rules, then see where we go from there. For instance:

1) Central importance of crew training/competence/morale on performance
2) Don't focus on but also don't completely "abstract away" technical issues – I know this has a bad rap from decades of excessively detailed "simulationist" rules but it is something that comes out from the literature. Obviously gun & armour but also optics, turret traverse speed, ergonomics, acceleration, climbing ability, etc etc etc
3) Reproduce the small unit tactics of the time – importance of ground (covered approaches, hull down positions, fire on the move or at the short halt, etc etc)
4) Reproduce the larger unit tactics – combined arms (or lack of it), fire/movement, etc
5) Capture the tension between planning (top-down orders) & flexibility (local initiative)
6) Spotting and logistics rules – very hard to get right but seem critical to reproduce what I read in histories
7) Plenty more but I have to stop somewhere and give someone else a say 

Of course what I'm asking is probably impossible to achieve, and also likely to take all the fun out of the "game" aspect anyway – what are your thoughts?

Cheers,
Pete 

[Steve J]

I think it was Featherstone in the Tank Battles In Miniature book on the Western Desert campaign where he stated that if the first shot missed, a good gunner would hit the target with his second shot 80-90% of the time. Again something that is rarely covered by rules on a one-to-one scale.

[Ithoriel]

Talking of things we don't/ can't reproduce, I remember reading an account of an engagement between either a Sherman or a Cromwell and a Panther which took place in a wooded area of France/ Belgium. The author's tank was saved by the fact that the Panther's gun couldn't traverse due to a tree being in the way so the Panther withdrew rather than find out if they were indeed immune to 75mm fire frontally.

How many similarly weird things happened I wonder?

[Raider4]

How many similarly weird things happened I wonder?

I've read reports of Tigers being abandoned after getting stuck in bomb craters, or after sliding sideways off the road, falling into streams when the bridge collapses underneath them, or reversing into 'something' - bridge support, building, tree - that puts them out of action.

I don't think I've ever seen a ruleset that allows the effect of 'friendly' fire to be modelled in any way that seems realistic. Most seem to just allow artillery deviation and nothing else.

[Big Insect]

I've read reports of Tigers being abandoned after getting stuck in bomb craters, or after sliding sideways off the road, falling into streams when the bridge collapses underneath them, or reversing into 'something' - bridge support, building, tree - that puts them out of action.

I don't think I've ever seen a ruleset that allows the effect of 'friendly' fire to be modelled in any way that seems realistic. Most seem to just allow artillery deviation and nothing else.

BKC/CWC/FWC Blunders are full of Friendly Fire ... I should know I seem to roll that score almost every time 

[sultanbev]

My own rules cover pretty much all those other than the friendly fire.

1) Central importance of crew training/competence/morale on performance - morale and training values coupled to a BKC style 2D6 command value
2) Don't focus on but also don't completely "abstract away" technical issues – I know this has a bad rap from decades of excessively detailed "simulationist" rules but it is something that comes out from the literature. Obviously gun & armour but also
optics (covered in gun accuracy tables)
turret traverse speed (not simulated, crew training and situational awareness probably more important),
ergonomics (not simulated other than in CV value),
acceleration (not simulated but individual vehicle speeds are used - those with high accn tend to have high x-country speeds, so it sort of simulates it)
climbing ability (only Churchills and Centurions can go up steep hills - some individual tanks eg KV-2 have restrictions on turret turning on slope - again actual cross-country speeds are used, but hills are half speed, going up or down, so slow tanks climb hills really really slowly)

3) Reproduce the small unit tactics of the time – importance of ground (covered approaches, hull down positions, fire on the move or at the short halt, etc etc) (covered, if the gamer wishes to use them, many don't!)
4) Reproduce the larger unit tactics – combined arms (or lack of it), fire/movement, etc (yep, allow company or battalion moves as an option)
5) Capture the tension between planning (top-down orders) & flexibility (local initiative) (again CV values a la BKC cover that abstractly)
6) Spotting and logistics rules – very hard to get right but seem critical to reproduce what I read in histories (we have spotting ranges, and use the blunder system to produce breakdowns, and running out of ammo, and thus ammo wagons can come on table to reload platoons)
friendly fire, other than indirect artillery and airstrikes, not covered, the blunder system with breakdowns could be said to cover this.
9) we have rules for 2nd shot on target, effectively adds 20% (chart in Featherstone's book showed 28% at up to ~1500m if I recall correctly)

Rules aren't published - come to Burnley club if you want a playtest - same set works for Cold War too. (not published yet - it takes an inordinate amount of effort to make rules publishable, as we've seen from CWC2) but the data will be used for the upcoming Divisions of Steel WW2 rules.

[steve_holmes_11]

Spotting is a tough one: 
Tough to do without really slowing the game.

Done literally (roll to spot, roll to hit) introduces yet another layer of dice and modifiers to a sequence that might already include to hit, to save and reaction.

If you're dealing with individual tanks, up to a troop of 3 - 5, you might use heads up/down.
Up providing decent visibility (You'll spot another tank by day in the open), whereas heads down and hatches shut really reduce awareness.

[sultanbev]

We just have fixed spotting ranges, no dicing involved. "Heads down" have spotting ranges halved, and shooting effectiveness reduced.

However recce, OPs and HQs that are halted can dice roll to spot beyond these fixed ranges, representing their role, training and better optics. But this would be a complete activation.

Mark

[fred.]

Battlefront rules have spotting - and it works pretty well. Generally tanks firing are going to be auto spotted, infanry taking cover on the other hand are much harder to spot. If does work pretty well at stopping infantry getting picked off at long range by tanks.

I do think morale failure, in terms of just backing off quietly and withdrawing is rarely modelled in rules. But this often seems to be an occurance in reading about WWII encounters. In some ways it links to spotting as when it can be hard to see the enemy, its easy to overestimate them, and also much easier for you to slip away if not getting shot at, as you are out of line of sight.

I think a lot of the examples of tanks getting stuck etc, feel they need to be abstracted to movement rules - if there is a chance of bogging when crossing walls etc, then players will be much more cautious.

In general the few turns of a game, and limited playing time often push the players into doing far more than their real world counterparts would do.

This is where the BKC command system can work at a gross level - with units being much slower to advance than many other systems. It can flick the other way at times they with the very good / lucky commander running rings round the opposition. What perhaps is against the BKC system is that it feels a bit random - the chance of failing orders is much the same when on the approach march as it is when up close with the enemy.

[hammurabi70]

It depends on whether you want rules for skirmish level wargaming, with individual tanks, or army level where a tank is a platoon, company or bigger.  In either case you need rules that take account of soft factors as well as hardware.  Our own home-brew rules, having company elements, add significant factors for training, morale, experience and health to the basic hardware factors.