Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Board and Card Games > Car Wars

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-01-2019, 04:08 PM   #1
Blue Ghost
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spinward Marches
Default Tank magazines

How much space would an extra tank magazine take up?
Blue Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 03:04 PM   #2
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Tank magazines

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost View Post
How much space would an extra tank magazine take up?
One -- same as everything else. Do note that for the bigger guns, that "magazine" may only contain the one shot....
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.
43Supporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 04:04 PM   #3
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Tank magazines

Yep, no matter how many tanks the magazine holds...

I'm sorry, I'll read that again...
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 11:28 PM   #4
Blue Ghost
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spinward Marches
Default Re: Tank magazines

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
One -- same as everything else. Do note that for the bigger guns, that "magazine" may only contain the one shot....
Kind of like "how deep is the ocean". Okay, I've got to give this some contemplation.
Blue Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2019, 02:38 AM   #5
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Default Re: Tank magazines : House Rules

The PzKw Mk X Lion from Military Vehicle Guide if it sticks to the ⅓ Space Per Side for Weaponry/Equipment Rule , should only have 26 Magazines rather than the listed 39 . Both the Spaces used for the Turret (8) & the Rocket Magazines (6) for the Turret's twin Super Rockets seem to be conveniently forgotten ...

27 Rounds for a 50 Ton Heavy Tank is a joke .

Having actually seen the actual size of 120mm Tank Gun Ammo & 155mm Howitzer Ammo , our groups have applied 'The Rule of Logic' & use 3 Shots per Mag for TG 12 Ammo & 2 Shots per Mag for TG 14 Ammo .

Size of 8 Inch Ammo (200mm/203mm in Game terms) :
https://www.alamy.com/shells-for-8-i...ip%3d0%26pl%3d

I've seen 12 to 18 inch Naval Shells at London's Imperial War Museum . I'd reckon that with Cordite Bag Charges , a 12 Inch Shell would take up same volume as myself - 2 to 2 Spaces as a Passenger . We've not really used different Space House Rules for Artillery Ammo - Tank Destroyers/Self Propelled Guns etc are exempt from ⅓ Space Rule anyway .
I'd say that only the Artillery 17 & 20 Ammo rounds would take up 1 Space per Round .

As Car Wars: Tanks Rules were very rushed , full of contradictions , bare little parity to the sample Vehicles & mainly devised by someone with a few problems with mathematics , we feel they should be taken with a large dose of Salt . Otherwise TG12s & TG14s would be an extreme rarity on gaming battlefields - most of our Official Rules compliant Heavy & Super Heavy Tank designs feature two TG10s or two/three TG9s to good effect .
My standard 120 Space Hull 'Centurion 21' Heavy Tank , uses a TG10 with around 70 Rounds of Ammo . Using one to fight a Haig MBT (Tanks page 47) with only 23 Rounds of Ammo (+ 4 Missiles) , is hilarious when Haig runs of Ammo ...

Conclusion : when using Tanks or other Military Vehicles/Equipment in Car Wars games , be willing to go beyond the limited Rules written 28+ years ago ;-)
__________________
Five Gauss Guns on a Camper !!!
The Resident Brit .

Last edited by Racer; 01-04-2019 at 03:24 AM.
Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 12:03 PM   #6
Blue Ghost
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spinward Marches
Default Re: Tank magazines

I tell this story every so often, but back between 1991 and 1993 I was down at FMC in Sunnyvale (they made the Bradley Fighting Vehicle) when they were presenting something called the Combat Command Vehicle Light (I can't remember the exact name). It was supposed to be a tank killer that could travel really fast (upwards of 85mph or some such), mounting I think a 100 mm gun. It had compartmental armor, if it flipped you could hand crank it upright with a crank that manually turned the turret, the magazines had component armor, and could operate with a crew of two because it was the first American tank to use an autoloader (I think the Soviets were big on autoloaders for their tanks).

But the Pentagon didn't buy it. Years later, over at the Amarillo Design Bureau website I learned that apparently the thing had survivability issues, in spite of a new armor design, and a model with reactive armor fitted to her turret.

I bring this up because from a Car Wars Tanks design standpoint the magazine … trying to recall from memory of looking down the autoloader mechanism … was maybe … three spaces big, more or less. It was like a revolver hand gun; the rounds spun in a rotary chamber like a handgun revolver, and two metal arms reached down to grab the next shell and load it into the chamber. I still recall one of the engineers calling the rounds "HEAP, HEAP, SABOT, SABOT, SABOT" as they cycled the magazine.

I guess in retrospect it was a good tank for the wrong era. I recently saw a History channel documentary on the Sherman, and apparently its nickname was "deathtrap" because it took several Shermans to take out a Panzer; flanking it to fire at its backside because the Sherman's gun couldn't penetrate the Panzer glacis. I think that was the final parallel analysis for FMC's tank buster--it couldn't shrug off a direct hit, or so it was believed, but the design was such that it was supposed to "absorb" hits instead of "resisting" them with heavy armor.

I'll have to do some research … maybe come up with a CW design for one. It was a real interesting two days for me. I'll never forget that.

Last edited by Blue Ghost; 01-10-2019 at 12:10 PM.
Blue Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 02:34 PM   #7
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Tank magazines

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost View Post
I bring this up because from a Car Wars Tanks design standpoint the magazine trying to recall from memory of looking down the autoloader mechanism was maybe three spaces big, more or less. It was like a revolver hand gun; the rounds spun in a rotary chamber like a handgun revolver, and two metal arms reached down to grab the next shell and load it into the chamber. I still recall one of the engineers calling the rounds "HEAP, HEAP, SABOT, SABOT, SABOT" as they cycled the magazine.
I think the Soviets used a similar autoloader at one point; it proved finicky (which is why Western designs rarely if ever used autoloaders).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost View Post
I guess in retrospect it was a good tank for the wrong era. I recently saw a History channel documentary on the Sherman, and apparently its nickname was "deathtrap" because it took several Shermans to take out a Panzer; flanking it to fire at its backside because the Sherman's gun couldn't penetrate the Panzer glacis. I think that was the final parallel analysis for FMC's tank buster--it couldn't shrug off a direct hit, or so it was believed, but the design was such that it was supposed to "absorb" hits instead of "resisting" them with heavy armor.
The "failure" of the Sherman was one of doctrine -- the Sherman was an infantry-support AFV; the job of killing tanks went to dedicated "tank destroyers" like the M10, M18, and M36. When it was learned "one never has the right kind of AFV in the right place at the right time", the notion of separate "tank" and "TD" types was disposed of; and the doctrine became "tanks fight tanks, infantry fights infantry" (best illustrated by the Soviet "tankodesantniki" -- put a squad of INF on each tank; if a tank is sighted, the INF decamps while the tanks fight it out; if INF is sighted, the INF hops off to engage while the tank provides support). Meanwhile, the US and Britain developed units like the Sherman "Firefly" (M4 with British 17-lb. cannon as main gun...).
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.
43Supporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 03:12 PM   #8
Blue Ghost
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spinward Marches
Default Re: Tank magazines

I forgot about the M10 and M18. I think I saw an R Lee Eremy History doc on those. He said something like the difference between a tank and non-tank that looked like and essentially was a tank but was called a different name (which I forget), was that the tank was designed to fight in support of infantry. Where the other vehicle was specifically designed to fight and kill enemy tanks.

FMC's design had a unique armor system in that the whole interior was essentially component armor. If you his the engine, or the fuel tank, or one of the magazines, the component armor diverted the explosion upwards. There was also going to be a new kind of armor to be fitted onto her at the time, but I think it fell into disfavor. But the CCVL was designed to absorb hits as she ran across the battlefield firing her gun. I think officially she had a crew of three, but could operate with only the driver and commander who served as the gunner. The third guy sat next to the driver behind the glacis.

An interesting shoot.

But I've often wondered how useful the Sherman was in Europe. On that note I've often wondered how useful the Japanese minitanks were in the Philippines. I wonder what a Car Wars Tank design of those guys would look like.

*EDIT*

Here's a wiki link to the XM8 Armored Gun System; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Gun_System

I may try to conjure a CWT design for it.

Last edited by Blue Ghost; 01-10-2019 at 03:25 PM.
Blue Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 01:25 PM   #9
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Tank magazines

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost View Post
I forgot about the M10 and M18. I think I saw an R Lee Eremy History doc on those. He said something like the difference between a tank and non-tank that looked like and essentially was a tank but was called a different name (which I forget), was that the tank was designed to fight in support of infantry. Where the other vehicle was specifically designed to fight and kill enemy tanks.
The term for "AFV for killing tanks" was "tank destroyer" -- here's a good beginning reference work: _The Tank Killers: A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force Paperback_, Harry Yeide. Available inexpensively on most book-seller sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost View Post
FMC's design had a unique armor system in that the whole interior was essentially component armor. If you his the engine, or the fuel tank, or one of the magazines, the component armor diverted the explosion upwards.
Cellular Ammunition Storage Magazine (CASM), but for the whole vehicle -- could make an interesting rules addendum to the existing product in _CW_.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost View Post
But I've often wondered how useful the Sherman was in Europe. On that note I've often wondered how useful the Japanese minitanks were in the Philippines. I wonder what a Car Wars Tank design of those guys would look like.
One aspect of tank combat in Europe which most games overlook: German tanks were painfully prone to breakdown, due to overloading issues (suspension, engine, and transmission designed for 40-ton tank; now what happens when the tank's weight is increased to *50* tons...). There's some more-recent WW2 games which include this -- for ex.: If the German tank goes off-road, there's a chance it will be immobilized due to broken suspension, or bogging. Couple that to German lack-of-supply, meaning tanks often went into combat with low fuel, and/or limited ammo; and it becomes a little more apparent why we're having these sorts of conversations in English rather than German.... >:)

Japanese mini-tanks were only useful if the other side had *no* armor whatsoever; I think there's a couple instances of Japanese "tanks" being defeated by US Engineer units with bulldozers, but I'd have to go digging.
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.
43Supporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 03:03 PM   #10
Blue Ghost
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spinward Marches
Default Re: Tank magazines

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
Cellular Ammunition Storage Magazine (CASM), but for the whole vehicle -- could make an interesting rules addendum to the existing product in _CW_.
Yeah, it was one of the big selling points for the AGS. Engine, magazine, fuel, crew were all situated in an armored cells.

Come to think of it I think this is one of the issues I had with component armor for Car Wars, because the rules, as written, to me, seemed to deliver little protection, particularly from the larger division duels. I'll have to re-read them. That verse the cells in the AGS which were designed specifically to divert a blast from a direct hit from a 120 mm shell.

I think it's one of the few times that I lost "faith" in the Car Wars rules, but only for component armor. I mean most of my duels were unlimited or upper division, so component armor wasn't much of a factor, but I saw how real component armor was supposed to work. Ergo my questioning of the CW component armor rules.

I guess it's not a big deal.
Blue Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.