Quid enim putatis? I never said the probability is linear. Specifically it is a 1 in 6 base point on the rise slope of a bell curve with 36 total possibilities. The question Matt presented appears to be, why was the overall Allied-Axis kill ration at 3:2 (which becomes 4:3 without the Stuarts and "assorted"). Much better than what the Sherman vs. PzKwIVh matchup reflected in the game system? (Matt should correct me, if I'm wrong.)
The mathematical hit ratios in the game of a Sherman/75 vs. various the PzKwIV, come out to be:
- 1 PzKwIVe to 1 Sherman
- 2 PzKwIVf2 to 3 Shermans
- 2 PzKwIVg (conspicuously absent from AaD) to 5 Shermans
- 2 PzKwIVh to 7 Shermans
Since you brought it up, if one uses an linear operation (d20), and starting at 15% hits on parity (AT-Armor), the hit numbers go down. More importantly, the hit ration only climbs to 2 Shermans per PzKwIVh, rather than the 3.5 Shermans hit before. So I think the upward slope of the probability bell curve is important here.
The most important question is, how close is this to real probabilities is the probable game outcome. After that is are those results really what is desired. After all, there is a fair amount of obvious fudging in the game system. We have all read the oft quoted, poorly referenced note that it took 5 Shermans to kill one Tiger/Panther. (The notation is unspecific as to 5 Shermans involved or lost.) On the other hand, in 1946, the U.S. Army did a study of tank-on-tank actions from 1944 involving the 3rd & 4th Armored Divisions. The average loss ratio was 3.6 PzKwIV/Panthers per Sherman. Soviet and British reviews and AARs, also gave good numbers to the Shermans, but not as good as the 1946 study.
