Jump to content

CMRT - BETA AAR - Soviet Side


Recommended Posts

Here are some of the notable kill stats from the game:

German:

- Elvis's flamethrower team: 14 KIA

- Elvis's Panther: 12 infantry, 1 OT34, 1 T34-85 (#1)

Russian:

- OT34: 12 KIA; 2 captured

- T34-85 #2: 12 infantry, 1 Hetzer

- T34-85 HQ: 4 infantry, 1 Panther

- T34-85 #1: 4 infantry, 1 Hetzer

- ISU-122 (the one that was NOT hit): 15 KIA, most in the last two turns

- 1st Plat with support mortar&HMG/5th Company (on my right flank): 18 enemy KIA and captured while suffering 5 casualties (seemed worse at the time), BTW a total of 12 enemy soldiers escaped from that killing ground on the right out of a platoon of around 44 individuals (Straggler Plat= 4 squads of 10 and an HQ of 4).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bil,

Your usual tremendous job in visually and verbally presenting the whys, wherefores and the thinking behind your decisions, coupled with great vids and treadhead's delight AFV imagery! If there's ever a tournament, I wouldn't want to be the opposition. Please leave your shotline analysis laser at home!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I would like to thank Bil and Elvis for their the great and fantastic AAR and their effort and time. I visited and read nearly every day what Bil and Elvis reported and I learned a lot and get more excited about CMRT.

I am looking forward to the release date.

If another AAR could be started I would be very pleased.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a High Casualty Percentage Battle for sure in one hour engagement, and the forces didn't really engage each other that much...More like a Running Battle ( short engagements at squad-Platoon level ), then a Company/Battalion stand-up fight.

Goes to show, CM continue to focus to much on High Casualites even if only small units are engaging each other at short intervals...Let alone anything bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a High Casualty Percentage Battle for sure in one hour engagement, and the forces didn't really engage each other that much...More like a Running Battle ( short engagements at squad-Platoon level ), then a Company/Battalion stand-up fight.

Goes to show, CM continue to focus to much on High Casualites even if only small units are engaging each other at short intervals...Let alone anything bigger.

Way to generalise and overstate the case on an insignificant sample. 20% of Bil's casualties were inflicted by one vehicle. 20% casualties on the Soviet attacker's part doesn't seem particularly heavy for a lead element, and the very nature of all wargames means the defender takes serious losses if they're beat, and that isn't even that unrealistic. Yes, the pace is probably quicker than RL, but for the ground gained/lost, it's not really a surprise (assuming both sides really wanted it, which has to be a given in a QB, or the VLs wouldn't be worth any points).

The reasons and arguments about this have been endlessly hashed out. Given the commentary about Soviet tactics, and singular lack of casualty-aversion, that's been on here to read, why are you even commenting on the numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very odd. The hit text says penetration through the glacis place. I'm reasonably sure that neither 85mm APBC or APCR should be able to penetrate the Panther glacis plate unless the T-34 is at a significantly higher elevation.

This indeed seems wrong. Panther upper glacis has 80 mm at 55 degrees and should be proof against Soviet 85 mm. Unless this penetration occurred through a flaw in armour or somesuch there might be a mistake here. Which is slightly worrying because T 34-85 vs Panther is such a common match-up for the period of this game that if it is not represented right, the impression of realism could suffer considerably.

Has any of the beta team or developers confirmed this?

Maciej

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This indeed seems wrong. Panther upper glacis has 80 mm at 55 degrees and should be proof against Soviet 85 mm. Unless this penetration occurred through a flaw in armour or somesuch there might be a mistake here. Which is slightly worrying because T 34-85 vs Panther is such a common match-up for the period of this game that if it is not represented right, the impression of realism could suffer considerably.

Has any of the beta team or developers confirmed this?

Maciej

I suspect the hit text was incorrect as the hit decal was on the lower front hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the hit text was incorrect as the hit decal was on the lower front hull.

There were two penetrations on the Panther. The first.....which was the kill shot......was lower front hull. The second penetration is as described. I only watched it 50 times. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well its about 1.5:1 casualties in my favor which isn't bad considering I was the attacker. Sorry I meant to look at the flamethrower team.. and now I won't have time for that until tonight.

As Elvis said he really would have surrendered, so the Tactical victory doesn't really reflect the end game where his units, at least those on my left were in a closing vice. The German units on my right I had no contact with and did not know what he had there (about 2 platoons worth of infantry it turns out) but they were out of the fight, and in reality would probably have broken out in another direction.

I dont think those 2 Plattoons could've turned the battle that much anyway, as they were lacking any anti-tank capability whatsoever. Had they had additional shreks and maybe some Panzerfausts they could've theoretically had some impact on Gelb. But yeah,. I agree, considering that you attacked its am really good result.. Well played indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the hit text was incorrect as the hit decal was on the lower front hull.

My somewhat limited experience is that when the hit text and the decal don't match it's the decal that is wrong. But that may not be always true.

I'll to some quick testing next week to make sure the penetration/armor values are on the up and up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFC,

May I seize upon the presentation of the combat results for the now ended RT AAR game to request the addition of the category "Guns" to the loss list? It was common to roster such losses IRL, and it's something we routinely had in CMx1, so could we please have it in CMx2 and CMx3?

Yeah, I requested this in another thread a couple or three months back. Seems like an obvious addition, so I have to wonder why it isn't already in. At the least AA, AT, and Inf guns as well as mortars should be included.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were two penetrations on the Panther. The first.....which was the kill shot......was lower front hull. The second penetration is as described. I only watched it 50 times. :)

Here are some screenshots of the two Panther penetrations showing the hit decals... it does appear, even though the first penetration is the one that killed the Panther that the second did indeed penetrate the upper front hull.

I'm a battlefield effects and tactics guy, not a technical expert by any means... so I leave the debate up to those with the slide-rules and the large sized hats.

13050750913_803c967c1f_o.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is I've been playing a test map that I've been rolling different armor types forward against each other starting out beyond 1000m. 85mm is most definitely NOT a reliable Panther killer from the front at combat range. We all knew the lower bow was vulnerable. That upper bow penetration is a big surprise, and I've plinked more Panther bows with 85mm than most (any) people here. Maybe its Elvis. The poor guy seems to have the worst luck. Remember the plane strafing him an precisely the wrong moment, or the supposedly KO'd ISU-122 recrewed and come back to life? I suspect if Elvis bet Heads every coin toss would come up Tails. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...