Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors in the Dunnigan System By Alan R. Arvold Attack Factors The Anti-Armor attack factors are probably the most controversial in the Dunnigan System. The problem is that the source materials that James Dunnigan and crew used to come up with the values in PanzerBlitz were rife with errors and misinformation, all thanks to the federal government’s cold war mentality of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Thus some of the attack values will be off by one or two integers when using the more modern source materials, which are more accurate in their hard data. To make matters worse, when Randall Reed and his crew developed Panzer Leader, they decided to leave the German anti- armor attack factors just the way they were to save time so they could concentrate on the Allied ones. The process in both games was started by first coming up with the base attack value for each type of gun. The value was directly based on the individual gun’s performance in terms of armor penetration at a range of 500 meters, using an APCBC (armor piercing, capped, ballistic capped) round, which was the most commonly used type of armor piercing round in the Second World War. The penetration value for that range (in millimeters) was divided by ten to get the base attack value for the gun (fractions were rounded to the nearest integer with 1/2 being rounded up). Using the penetration tables that were available in 1970 for PanzerBlitz, and in the early 1970s for Panzer Leader, the following base values were established for each type of gun used in the game. (Note that these also include guns from AFVs and weapons introduced in later variant articles in The General and The Boardgamer magazines.) Notes: • The German Czech weapons stand for those guns mounted on Czech vehicles used by the Germans during the war. German: 20mm 2 37mm (Czech) 4 37mm 5 47mm (Czech) 6 50mm/L42 6 50mm/L60 8 75mm/L48 14 75mm/L70 16 88mm/L56 15 88mm/L71 20 128mm/L55 22
Transcript
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors
in the Dunnigan System
By Alan R. Arvold
Attack Factors
The Anti-Armor attack factors areprobably the most controversial in theDunnigan System. The problem is thatthe source materials that JamesDunnigan and crew used to come upwith the values in PanzerBlitz were rifewith errors and misinformation, allthanks to the federal government’s coldwar mentality of the late 1960s andearly 1970s. Thus some of the attackvalues will be off by one or twointegers when using the more modernsource materials, which are moreaccurate in their hard data. To makematters worse, when Randall Reed andhis crew developed Panzer Leader,they decided to leave the German anti-armor attack factors just the way theywere to save time so they couldconcentrate on the Allied ones.
The process in both games was startedby first coming up with the base attackvalue for each type of gun. The valuewas directly based on the individualgun’s performance in terms of armorpenetration at a range of 500 meters,using an APCBC (armor piercing,capped, ballistic capped) round, whichwas the most commonly used type ofarmor piercing round in the Second
World War. The penetration value forthat range (in millimeters) was dividedby ten to get the base attack value forthe gun (fractions were rounded to thenearest integer with 1/2 being roundedup). Using the penetration tables thatwere available in 1970 for PanzerBlitz,and in the early 1970s for PanzerLeader, the following base values wereestablished for each type of gun usedin the game. (Note that these alsoinclude guns from AFVs and weaponsintroduced in later variant articles inThe General and The Boardgamermagazines.)
Notes:• The German Czech weapons
stand for those guns mountedon Czech vehicles used by theGermans during the war.
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 2 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
• The German 75mm/L48 linealso includes the 75mm/L46and the 75mm/L43 guns.
• The German 88mm/L56 lineincludes the 88mm (EarlyWar) ATG and the Tiger Iunits.
Notes:• The Russian 45mm (Early
War) line represents the earlyform of the 45mm AT gun,first introduced on 1932. Asan anti-tank gun it lasted thewar but was superceded bythe late war version startingin 1942. It was also the only45mm gun that was mountedin Russian tanks before andduring the war.
• The Russian 45mm (LateWar) was modified version ofthe 45mm AT gun, introducedin 1942, with a longer barreland more powerful ammuni-tion. It was never mounted onany AFV.
• The Russian 76.2mm lineincludes both the 76.2mm/L30.5 and the 76.2mm/L41guns.
Notes:• The American 76.2mm line
includes all different versionsof the 76.2mm and 3 inch ATguns mounted on tanks, tankdestroyers, and the AT gun.
Notes:• The British 77mm line re-
presents a cut down version ofthe 17 Pdr AT Gun that wasmounted on the Comet tank.
Notes:• The French 37mm (Old) line
represents the one 37mm gunthat was mounted on the FT-17 tank of World War Onefame.
• The French 37mm (Middle)line represents an improvedversion of the old 37mmmounted on several Frenchtank models in the 1930s.
• The French 37 (New) linerepresents the new 37mm gunthat was mounted on a few ofthe later French tank modelsof the 1930s.
• The French 75mm line re-presents the Model 189775mm cannon of World WarOne fame used in an AT role.
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 3 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
Modifiers
Once these base values were est-ablished, then they had to be appliedto the ATG or AFV units in question. Todo this, a series of modifiers wasestablished to change the base value toget a final attack value that took intoaccount both the mechanical limitationsof the vehicles themselves and theparticular tactics employed by the unitin question. Dunnigan established themodifiers for the German and Russianguns and AFVs, while Reed establishedthe modifiers for the Allied guns andAFVs. The base assumption was that anattack value would not be modified ifthe gun it represented was mounted ona turreted vehicle or on a carriage (forATGs) that allowed it to be quicklyfired in any direction. For turretedvehicles, this meant that it was mountedin the turret. For ATGs, this meant thatit was mounted on a carriage thatallowed for 360 degree fire or on acarriage small enough that it could beeasily manhandled by the gun crew tofire in any direction. In all other casesthe attack factor would be adjustedusing the following modifiers:
German:
Limited Traverse• minus 1 for anti-tank guns• minus 2 for tank destroyers
and armored cars
(Accounts for the limited traversingcapability of vehicular hull mountedguns or guns on heavy carriages thatwere difficult for the gun crew tomanhandle when turning around.)
Long Range• cancels limited traverse
modifier at ranges of 9 hexesor more
(Accounts for the ability to engage atlonger ranges where limited tra-versing would not be a detriment.)
Offensive Tactics• plus 1 for guns of the 37mm
class• plus 2 for guns of the 47mm
and 50mm classes• plus 3 for guns of the 75mm
class• plus 4 for guns of 88mm or
greater class
(Accounts for special tactics used bytanks and tank destroyers whenengaging superior enemy armor.Emphasized maneuvering to getflank and rear shots and avoidfrontal shots. This modifier was usedfor medium and heavy tanks only,plus some early war tank destroyers.Light tanks were not considered to bebattle tanks. This modifier was usedon early war tanks such as the Pz IIIand Pz 38t series and the Pz Jg 47tank destroyer in both Panzer Leader1940 and in PanzerBlitz 1941.)
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 4 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
Russian:
Limited Traverse• minus 1 for both anti-tank
guns and tank destroyers
(Accounts for the limited traversingcapability of vehicular hull mountedguns or guns on heavy carriages thatwere difficult for the gun crew tomanhandle when turning around.)
Offensive Tactics• plus 4 for guns of all classes
(Accounts for special tactics used bytanks and tank destroyers whenengaging superior enemy armor.Emphasized maneuvering to getflank and rear shots and, in theRussians’ case, seeking out overrunattacks at every opportunity. Thismodifier was used for medium andheavy tanks and for tank destroyers.Light tanks were not considered to bebattle tanks, although in practicethey were certainly used that way.Was used on every Russian vehicle inthe above mentioned classes that wasintroduced in 1943-45.)
Defensive Tactics• plus 4 for guns of all classes
(Accounts for special tactics used byanti-tank guns when engaging enemymedium and heavy AFVs.Emphasized getting flank and rearshots and not engaging with frontalshots except in self-defense. Alsoaccounts for the fact that RussianATGs were the only weapons thatreceived APCR rounds during thewar, which were otherwise in shortsupply. These rounds had severerestrictions placed on their use,given their rarity. Was used on everyRussian ATG of 76.2mm and above.)
Allied:
Limited Traverse• minus 2 for both anti-tank
guns and non-turreted tankdestroyers
(Accounts for the limited traversingcapability of vehicular hull mountedguns or guns on heavy carriages thatwere difficult for the gun crew tomanhandle when turning around.)
Offensive Tactics• plus 2 for guns of 57mm and 6
Pdr classes
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 5 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
• plus 3 for guns of the 75mmand 76.2mm classes
(Accounts for special tactics used bytanks and tank destroyers whenengaging superior enemy armor.Emphasized maneuvering to getflank and rear shots at everyopportunity. Modifier was used fortanks and tank destroyers mountingthese guns.)
Increased APDS• plus 1 for tanks mounting the
17 Pdr AT gun
(Accounts for the increased amountof APDS in British tanks mountingthat weapon carried. British tanksmounting the 17 Pdr ATG had up to20 per cent of their AP rounds asspecial types, APCR, and starting inSeptember 1944, APDS. Thismodifier is only applied to fourvehicle tank platoons. In contrast, allother tanks would have up to 10 percent of their AP rounds being specialtypes such as APCR or Hyper-shot.Tank destroyers did not get thismodifier as they had up to 50 percent of their AP rounds being thesespecial types.)
Okay, those were the modifiers thatwere used. When one applies thesemodifiers to the existing counters, mostof the attack values make sense.However, players will notice someaberrations in counter factors whentaken in context to the time of the wardepicted. For example, the plus 4modifier for Russian offensive tacticsshould not be given to the early warversions of the T-34 and the KV-1,especially in 1941 when such tacticswere not in play, as they were clearlythe superior tanks at that time. Thesame would apply to the Russian 45mmATG that comes in the game as it wasnot introduced until 1942; a counterwith the lesser value listed in the tableabove should have been substituted.However, Avalon Hill decided to keepthem the way that they were for threereasons. One, it saved having to makenew counters where they thought nonewere needed. Two, several Germanvehicle units had defense factors thatwere in excess of what the maximumadjusted armor thickness wouldwarrant them having (the excess camefor the tactics the vehicle units used atthe time) and it was felt that the inflateddefense factors would be countered bythe opposing inflated attack factors forreasons of playability. And three, whilea gun may change its anti-armor valuedue to a new type of AP round or anew type of gun being represented bythe same counter, its anti-personnelvalues would not change (there is justso much high explosives you can packinto an HE round of a given size) sowhy penalize an earlier version of gunby reducing its anti-personnel value?
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 6 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
Another factor that came up was thoseAFVs that mounted two different guns.The Dunnigan System did not addressthese types of AFVs and so the playerswho created counters for them (such asthe French B-1, the Russian T-35, andthe American M-3 Grant/Lee) de-veloped their own systems to come upwith the attack and range factors.There were many attempts in the 70s atthese types of vehicles whereindependent authors would makecounters with two different attack andrange factors, one set for each type ofgun. But Avalon Hill would not acceptthese types: there had to be one attackand one range factor on the counter.Yet no instructions were given on howto come up with them. Thus, eachauthor had to use his own method.Each of the three types of vehicles thatare represented in the DunniganSystem have their own separatemethod of coming up with thosefactors. As the T-35 has an H Classweapon, it will be described in adifferent article.
French B-1:
This counter was created by RamiroCruz for his Panzer Leader 1940variant. What he did was add theattack factor of the 47mm turret-mounted gun, which was 6, to theattack factor of the hull-mounted75mm gun, which was 2, coming upwith a combined attack factor of 8.For the range he decided to use the75mm’s range factor, which was 6, ascompared the 47mm’s range factor,which was 3, in order to come upwith a tank that had the best of bothworlds. Besides he wanted to dif-ferentiate it from the other goodFrench tank, the S-35.
M-3 Grant/Lee:
This counter was created by myselffor my Prokhorovka scenarios in TheBoardgamer’s Special PanzerBlitzIssue and later included in my article“Lend Lease in PanzerBlitz”. Afterseeing what Ramiro Cruz did withthe French B-1, I did not want to dothat for the Grant/Lee as it wouldcreate a counter whose attack factorwould far exceed the actual AFV’scapability. So I took the basic value ofthe main gun, that being the 75mm,which was 8, gave it the OffensiveTactics modifier which increased it to11, then reduced it to 9 due to theLimited Traverse modifier. But I feltthat I had to account for the turret-mounted 37mm in some way. So Itook the 37mm gun’s attack strengthat half range, which is 10, andincreased the overall attack value tothat. This way it makes theGrant/Lee a little less powerful thanthe M-4 Sherman, as it should be. Forthe range factor I used the range ofthe 75mm gun, which was 8.
Still yet another factor that came upwas that several guns had a number ofdifferent AP rounds that gave differentpenetration values at 500 meters. Agood example of this was the 88mmATG (Early War). This particular gun,an anti-aircraft gun used as an anti-tankgun, had three AP rounds. This firstone, which was developed as a resultof the Spanish Civil War of the late1930s, had a penetration value of
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 7 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
112mm, which would have given thegun an attack factor of 11. This roundwas in use starting in 1939. The secondround was developed in early 1942 inresponse to the thick armor of theRussian KV-1a tank, which even the88mm using the old AP round hadtrouble penetrating except at closerange. This second round had apenetration value of 132mm, whichwould give the gun an attack factor of13. Unfortunately the Russians cameout with the KV-1c in 1942, which hadeven thicker armor, and the Germansfound themselves back in the sameboat again. Thus work was done onthird AP round which came out in late1942. This round had a penetrationvalue of 146mm, thus giving the old88mm an attack factor of 15. Since allthree of these rounds were used to theend of the war, which value would bethe one to assign the old 88mm?Following the rational given in theprevious paragraph it was decided touse the highest value (15) for thecounter and then use it in the early warscenarios both in PanzerBlitz and inPanzer Leader. This of course does notmandate the creation of counters withattack factors that reflect the current APround being used. It should beremembered that a lot of compromiseswere made in order to maintain theeasy-going playability of PanzerBlitzand Panzer Leader.
Armored cars presented a particularproblem. Armored cars with A Classweapons of 25mm and above almostnever have the full attack value of theweapon in question. This is due toseveral factors. One was that armoredcars were designed for reconnaissance
purposes, not to engage enemy armorin combat, although that did happen inreal life. As a result their supply of AProunds was rather limited as most oftheir ammo supply was devoted to highexplosive or anti-personnel rounds.And even then, their AP rounds werebasically for light armored targets, notbattle tanks. Not only that, somearmored cars had turrets that traversedrather slowly due to the weight of thegun that they mounted and the fact thatthey had manual traverse only turrets.Thus the standard modifier for armoredcars is minus 2 from the basic attackfactor of the weapon in question.However, there are several exceptionsto this.
Russian BA-32a:
This armored car, which I created,was designed to be an anti-tankvehicle as well as a recon vehicle. Ithad a fully functional tank turretmounting a 45mm gun with a goodsupply of AP rounds, thus it had nomodifier applied to it.
German Sd Kfz 234/4:
This armored car was specificallydesigned to be an anti-tank vehicle. Itwas basically a 75mm AT gunmounted on a limited traverse turretin the armored car. Dunnigan, whocreated this counter, essentially gaveit the attack and range factors of the75mm ATG, with no further mod-ification.
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 8 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
British AEC 75mm:
This vehicle, which I created, wasdesigned to be a support armoredcar, much in the same vein as theGerman Sd Kfz 233 and 234/3.However it mounted the same 75mmgun as on the British battle tanks ofthe time, thus it was an A Classweapon. In order to insure that it hadan attack factor of 5 against non-armored targets, much the same as a75mm H class would have in directfire mode, I gave it an attack factor of10. Yes, it kind of over-inflates whatthe attack factor should be (6), butthen such are the sacrifices we make.
British Daimler:
This vehicle, which was designed byReed and crew, should have anattack factor of 4, not 3, if we followthe standard modifier listed above.However Reed reasoned that sincethe 2 Pdr was a pure AT weapon,with no anti-personnel rounds of anykind, that it should be penalizedfurther by cutting its attack factor inhalf, from 6 to 3. I do not know whatthe rational behind this reasoningwas, but since it came in the originalgame, the counter is canonical.
Four Vehicle Tank Platoons
Normally, the number of vehicles orguns that a counter represents isirrelevant in determining the attackfactor. In PanzerBlitz the countersusually represent 5 vehicles in a tankplatoon, 6 vehicles in a tank destroyerplatoon, and 7 vehicles in an armoredcar platoon for the Germans, and 10vehicles per counter for the Russians nomatter what class it is. For AT gunsthere were 3 to 6 guns per counter,depending on the counter in question.In Panzer Leader, the same rules wasfollowed except in the tank platoons.Randall Reed felt that he had todifferentiate between the five and fourvehicle tank platoons that existed inboth sides of that game. To do this hestarted off with the basic counter valuefor the tanks in question as if they werefive vehicle platoons.
Note that five of these tanks werecreated by myself well after PanzerLeader came out, but I included themto make this section complete. Alsonote that the defense factor for theGerman Pz IIIj does not exactly matchthe one for the Pz IIIj in PanzerBlitz. Intruth the Pz IIIj in Panzer Leader hasbeen up-armored to the Pz IIIL tank’s
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 9 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
standards which had a defense factorof 8. Most of the surviving J’s had beenup-armored by 1944, whereas the Jmodel in PanzerBlitz represents it as itwas in 1942. Another thing to note isthat the Tiger I and Tiger II were notincluded in this list, even though theyare listed as five tank platoon inPanzerBlitz and a four tank platoon inPanzer Leader. In truth, the Tiger tankswere always in four tank platoons andRandall felt that they did not have tobe changed.
Now Randall came up with a formulato convert the five tank platoon to afour tank platoon. In essence, therange and movement factor remain thesame, the attack factor is reduced by20 per cent (fractions rounded to thenearest whole integer), and thedefense factor has 1 subtracted from it.The results were as follows:
Most of the tanks were now set, butthose tanks armed with the 17 Pdr nowhad the Increased APDS modifierapplied to them. Note that the Cometdid not qualify for this modifier:
Having established the counter valuesfor the four tank platoons, Reed nowcreated the mixed British Shermanplatoon with three M-4 Shermans andone Firefly. To do this he set themovement factor at the slowest vehicletype in the platoon, which in this casewas 8, and he set the range factor atthe shortest range among the vehiclesin the platoon, which in this case was8. The attack and defense factors werearrived at by adding up the attack anddefense factors respectively of threeShermans and one Firefly together,then dividing each total by four androunding any fractions to the nearestwhole integer.
• Attack Factor: 14+9+9+9=41,divided by 4 gives us 10.25,which is rounded down to 10.
• Defense Factor: 9+8+8+8=33,divided by 4 gives us 8.25,which is rounded down to 8.
By mixing up the tanks in one platoon,Reed robbed the Firefly of its truepotential. This is why when I createdthe Challenger I did not mix it up inplatoons with the Cromwell, ashappened in real life. To do so wouldhave robbed the Challenger of itsbetter attack and range factors and theCromwell of its better movement factor.And this is why I separated theSherman and the Firefly into separatecounters, to give each tank its properdue. To his credit, Reed did not extendthis vehicle counting system to tankdestroyers, AT guns, and armored cars.In Panzer Leader there has been lot ofdiscussion as to why the German tankdestroyers, which have six vehicles percounter, and the Allied tank destroyers,which have four vehicles per counter,
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 10 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
are treated as if they are five vehicleplatoons. Well, on the one hand, sincethe German tank destroyers all havehull mounted guns, either in them or ontop of them, this is going to put them ata bit of a disadvantage. The Allied tankdestroyers on the other hand all haveup to 50 per cent of their AP ammoloads as either APCR or APDS rounds,thus making them as effective as a fivetank platoon. At least that is how Reedsaw it.
Range Factors
The range factors were based onmaximum effective range of the guns inquestion. Normally this would dependon the gun sights of the particularweapon. However, all gun sights hadrange markings in excess of themaximum effective range for longrange shots. These types of shots wererarely taken as a plentiful supply ofammunition would have to be availablein order to make the effort worthwhile.Even at the maximum effective rangeswhere hits were usually scored firingHE rounds at soft targets, one wouldnever waste an AP round at thoseranges as the penetration value wouldbe so reduced that it would not pierceits intended target. Of course there
were exceptions. The wonderful 88mmATG, in all of it incarnations, had astereoscopic rangefinder as part of itsstandard equipment. It was notmounted on the gun but was groundmounted instead; the range informationfrom it was transmitted to the gun crewswho then ranged in using theirmounted telescopic sights. This is whythe 88mm ATG has such a long range.(The Nashorn unit had stereoscopicsights also. Like the 88mm ATG, thesights were ground mounted and theinformation relayed to the guncrews onthe vehicles.) I think that the 88mm/L71was the only gun that could fire an APround out to its maximum effectiverange on a regular basis because itwas such a damn powerful gun, at themaximum effective range it could stillpenetrate most Allied and Russiantanks, despite the loss of penetrationvalue at such great ranges.
Russian guns of comparative size had alesser maximum effective range be-cause of the poorer quality optics thatthey used in their sights and rangefinders, a situation that was not re-medied until well after the war. But atmedium and close ranges they werestill adequate and so it was at theseranges that the Russians preferred tofight.
Allied guns were sort of in the middle,their optics were better than theRussians, but not quite up to theGerman standards. This is why some oftheir longer ranged guns (like the76.2mm and the 17 Pdr) have a fewmore hexes of range over the Russianones, but fall a few hexes short of theGerman ones.
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 11 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
The ranges on the ATGswere pretty strange. Thesmallest ones had the sameranges as their tankmounted counterparts. Thelargest ones, usually 85mmand above, also had thesame, or in two cases alarger, range than their tankmounted counterparts. Butthe ones that are in the middle, the 50to 76.2mm types, seem to loose a hexor two of range compared to their tankmounted counterparts. The reason forthis is because the gunsights on theATGs are closer to the ground thanthey would be on a tank. This reducesthe distance they can see through theirsight. For the small ATGs this does notmatter as their ranges are shortanyway. On the large ATGs their sightsare up high enough to be comparableto those on an AFV, thus they can seeas far. But the middle ones are notgiven their proper range by the gamesystem.
Odd AFVs
Lastly, we come to the odd vehicleswhich, for one reason or another, didnot perfectly fit the Dunnigan system ofcounter value creation with their attackor range factors.
German Elefant/Ferdinand:
This vehicle has two different sets ofvalues. The first one, the Elefant (20-A-12-15-4), was created by myselfand introduced in The General 28-3.The counter values in this one werecorrectly arrived at using theDunnigan system. The second one,the Ferdinand (18-A-14-10-6) was
created by F. PierceEichelburger and intro-duced in The General 31-6.Now granted, these weretraining vehicles; thescenario occurs far in theGerman rear near one oftheir training bases, whichaccounts for the betterrange (due to bettersights). But the attack
factor was where Eichelburgermessed up. While he did subtract 2from the attack factor to account forthe limited traverse, he forgot thatthe long range entitled him to thelong range modifier which canceledout the limited traverse modifier.Unfort-unately Avalon Hill did notcorrect the mistake and publishedthe counter as is, thus making itcanonical in Panzer Leader.
German Pz IIId:
This tank was created by RamiroCruz. However he had two differentversions of it. The first whichappeared in the article “PanzerBlitz1941” in The General 13-3, had anattack factor of 5. The secondversion, which appeared in thearticle “Panzer Leader 1940” in TheGeneral 15-2, had an attack factor of6. The second one iscorrect; obviously inthe first attempt,Cruz forgot to applyt h e O f f e n s i v eTactics modifier tothe attack factor.
German Sd Kfz 251/10 and 250/10:
These platoon and company com-mand halftracks mounted a 37mmAT gun on a pedestal which providedfor a pretty wide angle of traversing.Thus they did not qualify for thelimited traverse modifier.
Anti-Armor Attack and Range Factors 12 Imaginative Strategist 29 September 2006
Russian T-34a/KV-1a:
Both of these tanks, which I created,have an incorrect attack factor, atleast as far as the Dunnigan systemgoes. However, Avalon Hill did notsee it that way. Back in the General13-3, Ramiro Cruz in his article“PanzerBlitz 1941” said that theT-34c can be used back in 1941 as is.Then to top this he made a genericKV-1 tank counter, of which fourwere in the counter set, that could beused at any time during the war.Both of these vehicles have the76.2mm/L41 guns. However, back in1941 both tanks were armed withthe 76.2/L30.5 gun. I had deter-mined that the basic gunnery factorfor this gun was 6. Thus both vehiclesshould have an attack factor of 10.But Avalon Hill went with whatRamiro Cruz said so the attack factorof 12 remained. I was able to get acompromise though, as I had therange factor lowered to 5 which wasabout right for the 76.2mm/L30.5.Ironically, Cruz on his BT-8 counterhad a value of 10-A-5 for attack,Weapon Class, and range factorsbecause he thought that the tank wasarmed with the 76.2mm/L30.5 gun,which was subsequently provenwrong. So if he had the right valuesfor the gun, why did he not put themon the T-34a and the KV-1a? I reallydo not know. Anyway, both of thesetanks have become canonical now.Besides, in 1941 later productionruns of these tanks were armed withthe 76.2mm/L41 gun, but because oftheir limited numbers, were usually
reserved of the tank companycommander and his platoon leaders,so these counters could be expectedto have a mix of tanks armed withboth guns and so the attack factor isnot as inflated as one would think itis.
Russian SU-76:
The SU-76 is one of the originalcounters and was designed byDunnigan himself. By the Dunnigansystem, it should have an attackfactor of 11 and a range factor of 6.So why does it have an attack andrange factor of 12 and 5? WellDunnigan figured that since the SU-76 was nothing more than a 76.2mmAT Gun mounted in an opencompartment on top of a T-70chassis, he would treat it the same ashe did the German Sd Kfz 234/4armored car. He just put the attackand range factor for the 76.2mm ATgun on the counter and left it likethat with no further modifications.
French AMR-33:
This reconnaissance tank mounted a25mm AT gun. By all rights its attackfactor should have been 4. ButRamiro Cruz, who created it, gave itan attack factor of 3. His reasoningwas that since it was a recon vehicle,it would not have its full attackfactor, just like armored cars, so hededucted 1 from the attack factor inrecognition of this.
