T-34 vs Panther

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

I don't think so.

I believe it'll go like this:

1. A tank has a base price based on effectiveness. (T-34 would be in the same ballpark with PzIV, I think)

2. The price is adjusted by rarity. But not in a way that german tanks would be compared with soviets. Countrys tanks are compared to other tanks from the same country. At later phases of war, there'd probably be no addition to Panther prices. Certainly none for T-34.

3. Early war, soviets are given all kinds of command penalties, and accompanying discounts.

Me thinks there'll be great howling, when a typical late war fight will have about equal number of tanks for both sides. Same as happened to Shermans in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Jarmo. That was what I was trying to relay to Commissar but I think it was lost in the translation.

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

In this thread, the only number I recall seeing for Panther deployment in the East was 600 or 700. The person claiming this didn't provide a source so I don't know where this number is coming from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Commissar ARE you BLIND? WAKE UP!!!

Check the post above your last one. I dont think you actually read it.

Eh, whatever.....

Ahh, yeah!

[Freak]

Just some pointless numbers I decided to delete...nothing to see here...move along....

[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

Commissar ARE you BLIND? WAKE UP!!!

Check the post above your last one. I dont think you actually read it.

Eh, whatever.....

Ahh, yeah! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad eyesight, yes. Blind, no. Lazy, sometimes.

Actually, I just checked the operational numbers of Panthers in the West compared to operational Panthers in the East from Panzertruppen vol.2. p.247 and 248 state that in the East on 15 Mar 1945, there were 776 Panthers with only 387 of that number actually operational. In the West during the same time period, 152 Panthers total in the inventory but only 49 operational. I can see how Panthers may be cheaper than in CM1. I am presuming that the same cost calculation method from CM1 will also apply in CM2. There were so many T-34s compared to Panthers though. I'd still imagine the Panther being quite a bit more expensive than the T-34 if you factor rarity and effectiveness in.

However, 600 or 700 Panthers is not a totally correct number as someone previously stated. What I mean by that is that it's right but somewhat misleading. According to the German report collected by Jentz in Panzertruppen vol.2 p.230, total Panther tanks on the Eastern Front from 31 May 1944 to 15 March 1945 range from 292 to a high of 762. However, the operational numbers are usually about half the total available. Some months are a little more than half, others are less than half. Zaloga assetion in The Red Army Handbook of there rarely being more than 500 Panthers on the Eastern Front is true for operational Panthers. Indeed, Jentz's figures on the aforementioned page indicated the highest number of operational Panthers only reached 500 or a little above only twice during the 31 May 1944-15 Mar 1945 time period, in September 1944 and December. For the most part, the number remains fairly stable around the 400 mark.

[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Commissar]

By the way, does anyone know of a good book on Soviet armor besides "The Red Army Handbook?" At times I find it lacking in equipment specifics so I want to find a more meatier book on the subject. Thanks for any suggestions.

[PzKpfw 1]

The problem is the statement it's self is misleading as their were more then 500 Panther's deployed in the East . Another aspect is were looking at examples from a single month, while the operational numbers fluxuated daily.

And since CM makes no distiniction for mechanichal problems, 'operational' does not figure into the cost etc, or the T-34-85,

Tiger, Panther etc, would all suffer mechanichal penalties, on purchasing costs.

Regards, John Waters

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

And since CM makes no distiniction for mechanichal problems, 'operational' does not figure into the cost etc, or the T-34-85,

Tiger, Panther etc, would all suffer mechanichal penalties, on purchasing costs.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh? Has BTS said this? How is BTS defining "rarity" then? Do you know how BTS came up with their cost list for CM1 vehicles? I really don't recall. I think someone said that it was just BTS's evaluation of the vehicles effectiveness and overall usefulness (which is why the Panther actually costs more than the old Tiger 1). If so, eh.... onto the next endless, non-Peng thread.

[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

Oh? Has BTS said this? How is BTS defining "rarity" then? Do you know how BTS came up with their cost list for CM1 vehicles? I really don't recall. I think someone said that it was just BTS's evaluation of the vehicles effectiveness and overall usefulness (which is why the Panther actually costs more than the old Tiger 1). If so, eh.... onto the next endless, non-Peng thread.

[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno Comm I never read that mechanichal problems were a factor in 'rarity' & since the Panther's problems were pretty much worked out in models wouldn't the cost go down by vehichle model Ie, an Ausf G would be cheaper then an Ausf. A etc.

Also since all AFVs in CM operate at 100% and only reflect battlefeild actions why would mechanichal problems factor into rarity? as the problems arn't simulated to begin with.

If it's as you say then T-34-76's, KV-1's initialy & the later T-34-85, Panther's Tiger's etc are gonna cost quite a bit as well as both suffered from mechanical problems especialy the T-34-85.

Concerning the Panther the charts also show the PzKpfw IV & Stug operational numbers wern't much better then the Panther's all this would have to be figured into the mix as well, & it doesn't even touch on Soviet operational numbers.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Grisha]

rexford,

It would be interesting to see if the Soviet military archives have any collection of data wrt Soviet AFVs and what percentage were taken out by various Axis weaponry. I'd be very surprised if the War Experience commission didn't do such a study. Do you know anyone in Russia with access to the archives?

[rexford]

Russian Battlefield has data on tank losses due to various size German guns, which offers unusual detail. Interesting data is % by 88 guns.

Will try to identify exact location where the Russian tank loss % are contained.

[Jeff Duquette]

Greg!!! Where’s my turn!!! No pressure

Greg…Check Zaloga’s Red Army Handbook. I think you told me you had it somewheres on your bookshelf. Look at page 179. Real interesting brake down on Red Army Tank losses relative to German gun caliber.

Unfortunately Zaloga provides absolutely no detail on the methods by which these numbers were arrived at, nor does he even introduce the tables within the text. There just sittin there. Bad bad bad writing structure.

[Andrew H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

T34 design centers about speed and giving it the ability to move quickly through a defense. There are stories about the ability of KV-1 to waddle through an obstacle course or even cross a bridge without destroying things as its steering prevents straight movement.

Nothing published states the design philosophy behind T34 and KV-1, but all of the armor characteristics and shapes suggest different battlefield roles that called for different armor thickness, slope and hardness considerations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is probably right, and is consistent with some other design innovations in the T-34, such as the fact that, IIRC, the engine block was made of aluminum. Making the engine block out of aluminum is more complex and costly than it would be to make it out of iron; the fact that the sovs went to this trouble for a part of the tank that (1) isn't the gun; (2) isn't the armor; and (3) doesn't affect reliability; suggests that they did so only to obtain more speed out of the T-34. It's not like the T-34 was so underpowered that it would be immobile if this part was not cast from aluminum.

It's also important, in this context, not to forget that the multiplying effect of sloped armor means that the armor has the effective thickness of, say 90mm armor with the weight of 45mm armor. So while we tend to think of slope as making a tanks armor "thicker," it would also be logical to believe that sloping armor is a way to make a tank with "90mm" of frontal armor lighter.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Dunno Comm I never read that mechanichal problems were a factor in 'rarity' & since the Panther's problems were pretty much worked out in models wouldn't the cost go down by vehichle model Ie, an Ausf G would be cheaper then an Ausf. A etc.

Also since all AFVs in CM operate at 100% and only reflect battlefeild actions why would mechanichal problems factor into rarity? as the problems arn't simulated to begin with.

If it's as you say then T-34-76's, KV-1's initialy & the later T-34-85, Panther's Tiger's etc are gonna cost quite a bit as well as both suffered from mechanical problems especialy the T-34-85.

Concerning the Panther the charts also show the PzKpfw IV & Stug operational numbers wern't much better then the Panther's all this would have to be figured into the mix as well, & it doesn't even touch on Soviet operational numbers.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mechanical difficulties would affect rarity because they simply prevent the tanks available from actually being present on the battlefield. Again, look at the numbers. Only half or less of available inventory are available for action. How can that not affect rarity and actual availabilty? CM does not model tank breakdowns nor should it. It's beyond the scope of a tactical game. However, breakdowns and other such event would affect liklihood of a tank ever making it to any battlefield for fight, the same battlefield CM seeks to represent. Consequently, this should affect cost of such vechicles and liklihood of being met in significant numbers. However, if CM and CM2 don't really factor these pre-battle conditions in its cost calculation then it's a moot point after all.

All tanks have intial problems. The problems with Soviet equipment however may not necessarily result in "costliness" as you define if for the T-34, KV-1, T-34/85, etc. Since more of these vechicles like the T-34 were produce in much bigger numbers, even a 50% breakdown rate is going to result in much larger operational numbers for the Soviets as compared to German operational numbers. This wouldn't apply to all Soviet equipment for all years of course but some weapons systems like the T-34 or SU-76 were made in large numbers and large numbers of them would still exist in operational status despite high breakdown rate. It really all depends on how BTS will calculate the cost of equipment and what they decide to factor in and at what degree. Until we have better knowledge of this, all of us are merely speculating. However BTS decides to do it, I'll simply deal with it, work around it or make it work for me. After v.112 of CM, I all of sudden found my Tiger tanks being easily taken out by frontal penetrations by Allied tanks with their cursed tungsten rounds. I got around that by more manuever, hidden AT-guns, and Hetzers which have a good quality of getting many Allied shots to bounce off its armor. I love those little things. The sad thing is no matter how BTS figures out cost, they'll never satisfy everyone nor should they. It's just not possible. My guess however is that the Germans are going to be outnumbered yet again in CM2 just like they often are in CM1. It may even be worse. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Vanir Ausf B]

About rarity in CM2: I don't know if BTS is considering numbers of tanks fielded vs. number of tanks operational, but I do know that unit rarity will only be relative to other unit types on the same side. For example, rarity of Panther will be compared only to numbers of other German tanks, and KV-1 only with Russian. So, even though there may have been several times more T-34s than Pz Mk IV in late 1943, they will likely have about the same rarity factor, as they were both the most common tank for their respective armies. Yes, this means a German player will be able to buy just as many tanks as the Russian as long as he sticks to the more common types, just like in CM1.

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[rexford]

Good point about sloped armor being a way to make a fast tank lighter. That may have been what was behind the first major use of sloped armor.

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

About rarity in CM2: I don't know if BTS is considering numbers of tanks fielded vs. number of tanks operational, but I do know that unit rarity will only be relative to other unit types on the same side. For example, rarity of Panther will be compared only to numbers of other German tanks, and KV-1 only with Russian. So, even though there may have been several times more T-34s than Pz Mk IV in late 1943, they will likely have about the same rarity factor, as they were both the most common tank for their respective armies. Yes, this means a German player will be able to buy just as many tanks as the Russian as long as he sticks to the more common types, just like in CM1.

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, if so it may be as you say. But the results may end up being the same anyway of more Russians and Russian equipment than Germans on a regular basis just like CM. Different calculation methods ending up with more or less the same result. However, things like the Panthers should definitely be cheaper in CM2 than in CM1 due to higher operational and inventory numbers in the East as compared to the West. I play the Germans all the time in CM, and I am almost always outnumbered. When I play the Allies I am just amazed by how much goodies I can get even all lower points. The only time I get anything resembling force level parity is if I give the Allies a negative modifier especially in assault situations in which they attack. Of course, it's totally appropriate for the Allies to generally have more stuff than the Germans. I don't see how the East will be different in CM2 especially in the latter war years. Anway, I wish winter of 2001 would get here quicker.

[Grisha]

rexford,

Thanks, I'll have to take a look at that.

Jeff,

I'll get it to you, grrrrr!!! Now that you mention it, I think I remember seeing that chart in Zaloga's book(yeah, I bought through abebooks).

[rexford]

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]