I was looking online at some information and a narrative from some Ukrainian armoured vehicle crews.
What was very interesting was their observations based on experiences of using Western v Soviet AFVs/APCs in combat.
The clear narrative was that crew and passenger 'survivability' was markedly different between Western AFVs and those of Soviet design. It appears that the Western vehicles have much higher 'survivability' rates than their ex-Soviet counterparts. Much of this 'kit' is of course now quite aged Cold War stock, both from NATO & the Soviet era, and so I thought that was very interesting as far as CWCII was concerned.
The Ukrainians view was that whilst both sets of vehicles had their vulnerabilities, the way that the Western ones were designed meant that the survival of the crew and passengers was significantly more likely, even with a major hit. With the IFVs/APCs this was very noticeable as far as passengers were concerned, as the Soviet kit tended to mean the almost certain and total loss of all the crew and passengers.
With MBTs a major hit on Soviet designed tanks tended to result in a catastrophic explosion of the ammunition, that not only killed all the crew but effectively blew the tank to bits - with the turret being separated from the main chassis. With the Western MBTs, the design of the ammo storage meant that if the ammo went up the blast was directed outwards and away from the crew and also the core components of the tanks systems etc. And generally the turret remained attached to the chassis. So not only did the crew stand a better chance of survival, but also the tanks stood a much higher chance of being repairable.
I'd be interested in thoughts on this, but I am thinking of making a change to saving throws in CWCII, for Western/NATO APCs & IFVs for passengers on a 4/5/6, as opposed to the current 6 - which we'd keep for Soviet made equipment. Similarly, in a campaign game I'd improve the chances of Western/NATO KO'd AFVs being repairable, to return to combat in another battle, again changing this to a 4/5/6.
We obviously don't have any similar information or stats on the survivability of Chinese equipment, although there is some information from the Indo-Pakistani Wars and Iran-Iraq War that indicates that the Chinese equipment was as poor as the Soviet designs they were generally based on. I expect that with some of the later post 1990 Chinese APCs (outside the scope of CWCII) there will have been an improvement in passenger survivability, as the Chinese learnt some very hard lessons in their combats against the North Vietnamese.
Thanks
Mark
Mark have seen accounts that Chinese stuff is appaling. Build quality was such that there were 1/2" gaps in the welds in places. Build quialty seems to run down from Poland/Chez through Soviet to Chinese. The best comparison would be the T54/55/59-I which in essance are the same vehicle. Survivability in an APC is a knoty problem. An HV penetration of an enclosed vehiles is likley going to kill crew and passengers due to the overpressure caused which will severly damage internal organs.
Artillry causes very few K Kills, but lots of F and M kills, destroying optics or wheels or tracks. In game terms this is a dead track, but well fixable, with shaken but not disabled crew. Modern Arty is much more accurate due to the fire control kit it has, even if using WWII origin kit. However it can't be used for prolonged bombardment against technically savy opponent - it will be located and neutralised.
Seems reasonable - when the Challenger went up, all the crew got out, where as Soviet/Russian tanks appear to leap in the air.
Of course this is probably down to design philosophy - NATO tanks have the blow out storage at the back of the turret specifically to improve survival rates, where as Soviet tanks have the round in the hull.
I think the issue (at least in terms of changing saving throws for passengers) is whether the passengers surviving hits on Western-designed IFVs are in any fit state to fight. They may well be alive more often than if they were in a BMP, but for the purposes of our wargaming the real question is whether once they bail out they are fit-and-able and all set to head off hunting down the enemy (or whether, as I rather suspect, they're not in any fit state to fight in the immediate future).
One of the many issues for the Russians has been that APCs are used really badly. Western doctrine is infantry escorts the vehicle on foot. Russian is the infantry rides in until the last moment. Consequently kill rates of passengers has been shocking due to ambush tactics that the Ukrainians mastered early on
Quote from: dylan on 20 September 2023, 02:10:59 AMI think the issue (at least in terms of changing saving throws for passengers) is whether the passengers surviving hits on Western-designed IFVs are in any fit state to fight. They may well be alive more often than if they were in a BMP, but for the purposes of our wargaming the real question is whether once they bail out they are fit-and-able and all set to head off hunting down the enemy (or whether, as I rather suspect, they're not in any fit state to fight in the immediate future).
That is very true dylan. The rules do allow units to successfully survive the KO of their vehicle, and to then fight again in the game. Maybe we should leave things as they are (save on a 6 for Western designed AFVs) but not allow saves for Soviet ones. Just a thought.
Quote from: Big Insect on 20 September 2023, 08:39:15 AMThat is very true dylan. The rules do allow units to successfully survive the KO of their vehicle, and to then fight again in the game. Maybe we should leave things as they are (save on a 6) for Western designed AFVs, but not allow saves for Soviet ones. Just a thought.
Much of what has been stated (including the artillery section) validates my own thoughts that I've used in my own rules for last 30-odd years,so that's nice to know.
"I'd be interested in thoughts on this, but I am thinking of making a change to saving throws in CWCII, for Western/NATO APCs & IFVs for passengers on a 4/5/6"
I wouldn't apply that to NATO tin-can APCs of the 1950s-60s, such as M113, Saxon, FV432 etc, only things like Marders, Bradleys, CV90, YPR-765, AIFV, 2S38, AS21 Redback, KIFV, and so on, those with thicker armour or composite armours of assorted varieties.
HAPC such as Namer, Achzarit, Nagmashot, Israeli Puma, BMO-T maybe even a 3-6 for passengers to bale out.
Or you could do it on overkill. If the APC model you KO has 3 hits and you just get 3 hits that aren't saved, then the infantry bale out on 4-6, & so on.
If you get more hits than you need that are unsaved, a 5-6 to bale the infantry out, 6 for none-NATO perhaps?
If you get double hits than you need or more, then occupants die too.
Or something like that.
Mark