Striker Book 3 DS 1 Step E Turret Configuration

[snrdg082102]

Morning all,

Another silly question or more than one coming up after the details concerning turrets.

A turret by my count has the six same facings as the chassis which are front, rear, bottom (chassis belly), top (chassis deck), left side, and right side.

Why does DS 1 Step E state four faces?

Shouldn't the rule state that there are four faces that can be sloped?

 

[Carlobrand]

Morning all,

Another silly question or more than one coming up after the details concerning turrets.

A turret by my count has the six same facings as the chassis which are front, rear, bottom (chassis belly), top (chassis deck), left side, and right side.

Why does DS 1 Step E state four faces?

Shouldn't the rule state that there are four faces that can be sloped?

A turret belly is open in that direction to connect with the tank chassis interior, so that facing is ignored.

The chassis deck likewise has a hole to receive the turret. The armor that would otherwise occupy that hole in the chassis deck (or turret belly) is assumed to take the position of the turret deck. It's not accurate, but it does simplify the game - you have only one "top" armor rating to worry about, instead of having to figure out whether an artillery round hit the chassis or the turret, and you don't have to subtract the weight of the armor removed from the chassis deck and then calculate and add in the weight of a turret deck.

The result is that there are only 4 remaining faces to worry about. The 5th (the bottom) is a hole, while the 6th (the top) is identical to the chassis deck and requires no calculation.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Carlobrand,

Thanks Carlobrand, however the top of the turret is, at least in my mind, separate from the chassis deck.

Building a turret without mounting it on a chassis and you have six surfaces, front, rear, top, bottom, left side, and right side. The front, rear, top, left side and right side exposed to attack by various types of munitions. Each of the five exposed surfaces are usually armored with the front, rear, left side, and right side, per DS 1 F, can be sloped.

A turret belly is open in that direction to connect with the tank chassis interior, so that facing is ignored.

The chassis deck likewise has a hole to receive the turret. The armor that would otherwise occupy that hole in the chassis deck (or turret belly) is assumed to take the position of the turret deck. It's not accurate, but it does simplify the game - you have only one "top" armor rating to worry about, instead of having to figure out whether an artillery round hit the chassis or the turret, and you don't have to subtract the weight of the armor removed from the chassis deck and then calculate and add in the weight of a turret deck.

The result is that there are only 4 remaining faces to worry about. The 5th (the bottom) is a hole, while the 6th (the top) is identical to the chassis deck and requires no calculation.

 

[Carlobrand]

Evening Carlobrand,

Thanks Carlobrand, however the top of the turret is, at least in my mind, separate from the chassis deck.

Building a turret without mounting it on a chassis and you have six surfaces, front, rear, top, bottom, left side, and right side. The front, rear, top, left side and right side exposed to attack by various types of munitions. Each of the five exposed surfaces are usually armored with the front, rear, left side, and right side, per DS 1 F, can be sloped.

As you wish. Striker does it that way for the reasons I gave, but you're free to revise the design rules and introduce a step that subtracts the hole in the chassis deck and then calculates a separate thickness and mass for the turret top, then revise the combat damage rules to consider that, if that is your preference.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

First, I'm getting the impression that I've once again pushed too hard with my point of view. My apologies fro being too thick headed.

Next, I understand that somethings where dropped to keep things simpler. Unfortunately I disagree with the simplification that the turret top is automatically going have the same thickness as the top/deck of a vehicle's chassis.

Finally, since I appear to be in the minority I'll move along and drop this topic of discussion.

Thanks again for the reply and putting up with me Carlobrand.

As you wish. Striker does it that way for the reasons I gave, but you're free to revise the design rules and introduce a step that subtracts the hole in the chassis deck and then calculates a separate thickness and mass for the turret top, then revise the combat damage rules to consider that, if that is your preference.

 

[Carlobrand]

Morning Carlobrand,

First, I'm getting the impression that I've once again pushed too hard with my point of view. My apologies fro being too thick headed.

Next, I understand that somethings where dropped to keep things simpler. Unfortunately I disagree with the simplification that the turret top is automatically going have the same thickness as the top/deck of a vehicle's chassis.

Finally, since I appear to be in the minority I'll move along and drop this topic of discussion.

Thanks again for the reply and putting up with me Carlobrand.

I don't think you're thickheaded, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to make something better or more realistic. There are a number of points where Striker simplified - the sloping rules being one of the more egregious ones, but this turret top business being another one. The results are playable but can be a bit of a headache if your goal is to emulate a historical design. So, it's more a question of whether your goal is to understand canon Striker or come up with a better house-rules variant to share with others.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Carlobrand,

Sorry about taking so long to reply, I've been pondering my reply a bit.

Thanks for indicating that I may not be thick headed (this time ).

In this case the design example used in DS 1 is for the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther. The numbers used in the example are close to the real world version. Unfortunately none of the sources I have looked at tell how thick the chassis deck armor or turret top armor was. One source does mention that a hit on the lower portion of the gun mantlet that bounced downward could penetrate the thin front hull roof (deck) armor. Part of the tanks ammo was stored in the area not to mention being really close to the driver and radio operator/gunner.

I don't think you're thickheaded, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to make something better or more realistic. There are a number of points where Striker simplified - the sloping rules being one of the more egregious ones, but this turret top business being another one. The results are playable but can be a bit of a headache if your goal is to emulate a historical design. So, it's more a question of whether your goal is to understand canon Striker or come up with a better house-rules variant to share with others.