I'm not sure about your ammendments with regards to gun class and armour for post war tanks. I've copied your post on the Dyspepsia chat for context.
"Extending into the 50s, with Rapid Fire......
In general , most of the kit is the same, but tanks have moved on a bit. eg- Centurion MkIII 20pdr is gun class -1 - subtract 2 from the score needed for Gun class 1 . Bear in mind this is probably the only tank with a fully stabilised gun at the time. Armour should be A+1 - ie as A class but add 1 to the score needed.
JS 4- Gun class as per the WW2 122mm, which it was, armour A+2.
T54 - Gun class 1 , armour A+1
105/106mm RR gun class 0"
Under your configuration a Mk. 3 would only need a 4 to hit a IS4, a 2 to hit a IS2/3 & T-54, and would automatically hit a T-34/85.
A T34/85 would need a 6 to hit the Mk. 3 JS2/3/4 would need a 5. A T-54, which I see you have excluded by making the date 1948ish rather than up to 1950 would, under your gun configuration, need a 5 to hit a MK.3.
This seems a bit... off.
I think you have been a bit generous mith the Mk.3's armour which was substantially thinner that a JS3s. On average the front armour of a Mk.3 was 76.2mm thick, the JS3 had a front armour of 110mm. Maybe A armour class for the Mk.3 would be more accurate? Or even B, in rapid fire a Tiger I, which has B class armour, has thicker armour, in reality, than a Mk.3.
The reason I said 1948, is that Von Widdler and I have been batting some idea about based on that year! I agree that the Centurion 3s armour should probably be downgraded to A or B. It's main advantage was the accuracy of the 20pdr, and the stabilisation system, hence the gun classification. Strangely, the Russian and US tanks of the era were still armed with wartime guns- even the first model of the T54. The French ARL 44 had a 90mm AA gun mounted, which turned out to be less accurate than the 75s in the French Panther unit. I'm guessing it would probably be classed the same as the US 90mm. I think the JS 4 was not successful- only 250 were built, and they were sent to the Far East eventually- possibly the turret was too cramped to handle the ammo? In terms of numbers, the bulk of Soviet tanks would be T34s, most British tanks would be Comets or even Cromwells, French and American would mostly be Shermans- 76mm ones though. When Korea broke out in 1950, the US had very few M26s in working order, and they were replaced with M46s as soon as they were available, as the mobility was poor off the flat. Bob, I think SU100s were still in substantial use 1n the 40s- not sure how long the ISU vehicles stayed around. More research needed. I'll have a rummage through the Challenger vehicle definitions- they are usually pretty accurate.
I'll have a look at these dad. I was only joking about the 1948 thing Don.
I agree most of the Soviet tanks would be T-34 and tank hunters supported to an extent by Js2s (about 4,000 were built) and some 3s. Yes I believe the IS4s were largely sold to China, I think it was to do with the fact that most 'modern' armies were moving away from the whole light/medium/heavy tank ideas of the War towards the main battle tank concept, i.e. the T-54/5.
With Regards to the Mk.3 gun, Perhaps it shouldn't receive a -1 penalty for moving and shooting to represent the advantage of the stabilisation system? Although, what do you mean by the gun stabiliser as an advantage? Is there a particular benefit to the Mk.3s stabiliser compared to others? I'm pretty sure all US tanks, by the end of the war, had gun stabilisers and that doesn't seem to confer them any tangible advantage in Rapid Fire. I also read that the Mk.3 performed very well in the rough terrain of Korea.
So If we made the Mk.3 A/B class armour, I'd say gun class 1, that would mean it hits a T34 on anything but a 1 and a ISII/III on a 4+, bearing in mind it wouldn't be suffering any minuses for movement.
Don, maybe we should have a test game or two, to work out any potential kinks in terms of the change in historical context? Who knows, we could end up producing a new expansion for Rapid Fire
I think the problem is directly using WW2 Rapid Fire without any adaptations. The gun and armour chart is based around that specific time and the tanks that were avaiable 1939-1945. Although the tanks we are talking about are in most respects, very similar to those tanks, the issue with the rules is the tank's stats are relative to each other in that period and do not take into consideration the relativity of the WW2 tanks to tanks not included in their lists like the Mk.3 and JS4 for example.
It may be we should downgrade the armour and gun class of all the ww2 equipment by 1, then the later stuff can be added in as gun class 1s or A/B armour, instead of adding new armour grades, such as A+2 or +1.
So a Mk. 3 would be Gun class 1, armour class B. A T-34(85) would be armour class D (down 1 from C) and gun class 3 (down 1 from 2).
Er.. There is no auto hit in Rapid Fire, a 1 is always a miss. There is a set of downloadable post war adaptatations - I have bits of them, which is where I originally got the idea of Gun class 0 and -1. As you say , it might be easier to rewrite the AT shooting bit, if it is going to cause contention.
dandare: Any plans for Sunday the5th?
Jan 2, 2020 11:17:35 GMT
dandare: Turns out it's napoleonic
Jan 2, 2020 17:10:30 GMT
meliadus: It was a good game, meant to ask, what do you call the rules?
Jan 5, 2020 17:52:41 GMT
dandare: casrnage and glory
Jan 12, 2020 10:55:03 GMT
dandare: what's on the menu for Sunday 9th?
Feb 6, 2020 8:49:04 GMT
meliadus: Sorry not at club had a really bad night last night, getting to sleep bout 7 this morning.
Mar 1, 2020 15:23:23 GMT
Zhao Zilong: Hi Everyone, Just got a message from Brian saying he is unwell and won't be able to come to the club today. Since he has the keys looks like we'll have to cancel. Sorry for the short notice
Mar 8, 2020 11:05:03 GMT
meliadus: No worries, just hope he's okay Alan, cheers mate.
Mar 8, 2020 11:10:35 GMT
dandare: Are we on for next Sunday?
Mar 10, 2020 9:04:30 GMT