Doesn't Add Up
It's fair to say that I have a bias when it comes to ASL. I am a Red Army man.
I also like to have a little bit of fun poking the game designers over slights to the Red Army. So why is it that the PTRD is so inferior to the Lahti ATR?
The Soviet PTRD (Anti-Tank Rifle Degtyarov) was deployed in the Summer of 1941 as a cheap and quick replacement for the scads of anti-tank equipment the Red Army lost in the early phases of the war. It used a powerful 14.5mm round that could penetrate 40mm of rolled plate armor at 100m--at 90 degrees. Around 160,000 were produced before they became hopelessly outdated in 1942. However, even afterward many units kept them available because they remained effective vs. halftracks and reconnaissance vehicles.
This compares quite favorably to the penetration of the 37mm Pak deployed by the Wehrmacht which could penetrate 60mm of rolled plate at 100mm--again at 90 degrees.
Yet, in ASL, the BTK numbers are 6 for the PTRD and 9 for the 37L. Let's examine: Facing a 1AF, the FTK for a PTRD is 5 (a little over 25% chance.) However, the Pak 37 has a 8 FTK and 72% chance of getting an effect. Even though the penetration of the PTRD is 66% of the penetration of the Pak, its FTK is 1/3.
But wait, there's more!!! A 37L has a rate of fire of 3! This means that it is likely to get at least one extra shot per fire phase, effectively doubling its chances of getting an effect. Now, the 37L has six times the potency of a PTRD.
Even more!!! The 37L can intensive fire. The ability to intensive fire doesn't quite double the chances of an effect, but if we leave aside the increased risk of malfunction, we can still add about a 75%. Now, the 37L is around 10 times more effective.
Why stop now? The 37L can also become acquired, boosting the likelihood of an effect. It's pretty hard to say how much more likely, but at this point you should be able to draw your own conclusions.
The 37L may keep concealment, conveys a +2 gunshield/emplaced benefit and can score multiple hits. It does have to define a covered arc and is not nearly as portable. Is this all comparing apples to oranges? Kind of, but for a small, manportable weapon that was, according to all objective standards was about two-thirds as effective, the PTRD was clearly shortchanged in game terms.
The PTRS (Anti-Tank Rifle Simonov) was equally effective as its PTRD contemporary and was semi-automatic, holding a 5 round clip of 14.5mm ammunition. It was a little heavier and a little bit more prone to breakdown (the magazine was likely to become dirty and jam), but with a production of 60,000 the question begs to be asked: Where is my counter for this?
On the other hand, Finland produced about 1800 Lahti ATR's, which had a penetration of only 30mm of rolled plate at 100m. While it did have a ten round clip, the Lahti had four different ammo loads to accommodate anti-personnel and anti-fortification rounds, so the size of the clip is much less relevant. It has the same BTK as the PTRS/PTRD, even though its actual penetration is only 75%.
Draw your own conclusions.
Check out A Second Bite at The Apple for a more comprehensive view on this subject.
I also like to have a little bit of fun poking the game designers over slights to the Red Army. So why is it that the PTRD is so inferior to the Lahti ATR?
This compares quite favorably to the penetration of the 37mm Pak deployed by the Wehrmacht which could penetrate 60mm of rolled plate at 100mm--again at 90 degrees.
Yet, in ASL, the BTK numbers are 6 for the PTRD and 9 for the 37L. Let's examine: Facing a 1AF, the FTK for a PTRD is 5 (a little over 25% chance.) However, the Pak 37 has a 8 FTK and 72% chance of getting an effect. Even though the penetration of the PTRD is 66% of the penetration of the Pak, its FTK is 1/3.
But wait, there's more!!! A 37L has a rate of fire of 3! This means that it is likely to get at least one extra shot per fire phase, effectively doubling its chances of getting an effect. Now, the 37L has six times the potency of a PTRD.
Even more!!! The 37L can intensive fire. The ability to intensive fire doesn't quite double the chances of an effect, but if we leave aside the increased risk of malfunction, we can still add about a 75%. Now, the 37L is around 10 times more effective.
Why stop now? The 37L can also become acquired, boosting the likelihood of an effect. It's pretty hard to say how much more likely, but at this point you should be able to draw your own conclusions.
The 37L may keep concealment, conveys a +2 gunshield/emplaced benefit and can score multiple hits. It does have to define a covered arc and is not nearly as portable. Is this all comparing apples to oranges? Kind of, but for a small, manportable weapon that was, according to all objective standards was about two-thirds as effective, the PTRD was clearly shortchanged in game terms.
The PTRS (Anti-Tank Rifle Simonov) was equally effective as its PTRD contemporary and was semi-automatic, holding a 5 round clip of 14.5mm ammunition. It was a little heavier and a little bit more prone to breakdown (the magazine was likely to become dirty and jam), but with a production of 60,000 the question begs to be asked: Where is my counter for this?
On the other hand, Finland produced about 1800 Lahti ATR's, which had a penetration of only 30mm of rolled plate at 100m. While it did have a ten round clip, the Lahti had four different ammo loads to accommodate anti-personnel and anti-fortification rounds, so the size of the clip is much less relevant. It has the same BTK as the PTRS/PTRD, even though its actual penetration is only 75%.
Draw your own conclusions.
Check out A Second Bite at The Apple for a more comprehensive view on this subject.
Comments
I have to assume the relatively lousy stats for the ATR (in terms of ROF and acquisition) is mostly about the fact that typical engagement ranges would be more than 100m, probably a lot more, and the gunsights on the 37L would be a huge advantage at any kind of range. In the picture you have here, the ATR doesn't even have a scope, so beyond 100-200m (3-5 hexes) I have to think you'd just be pointing and hoping, so the lack of ROF and acquisition seems entirely appropriate.
I imagine if you designed ASL from scratch, you might do ATRs somewhat differently - I can see some kind of SAN-like mechanic where light armored vehicles might be randomly vulnerable to ATR fire. The fact that ATRs are SWs is kind of a legacy of the old Squad Leader, and it's sometimes kind of weird. For example, often one of the best uses of an ATR is to give it to a Hero, so he can project his -1 IFT modifier out to 12 hexes (which he can't do with an MG, because of its usage requirements). Obviously this is silly. The new mechanics for PFs and MOLs are great, it's too bad they didn't come up with something a little better for ATRs. But obviously ATRs are just not that important in the grand scale of things.
If you are shooting at a Tiger, the numbers don't really matter as much. But if you are shooting at a PzKw35(t), it makes a HUGE difference. As I stated, penetration reflected by BTK# is about 1000% higher for a 37L than a PTRD. That just doesn't bear up under scrutiny. As for a SAN mechanic. Blech. Blech and Double Blech. Thanks for your thoughts.