Is the T-34's gun really under modeled in the game??

[malfuriouspete]

Since this game prides itself on historical information and such, I've read from time to time on these boards that some people are disappointed with the performance of the t-34's 75mm gun, especially against StuG IIIs and their frontal armour.

Is there some kind of real-world vs in-game discrepancy of the 75mm gun, or perhaps the StuG III's armor? Or is there nothing wrong and the t-34/75 couldn't really take out StuG?

[Patrocles]

good question! I punched in T34 and undermodeled into the forum search engine and came acorss this informative entry from JasonC in a thread about soviet gun and ammo from 2001. I bet if you do some searching you can find even more info around this site regarding the undermodeling of soviet weapon systems in CMBB.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=39282&highlight=T34+undermodeled

"Russian weapons are systematically undermodeled in CM. I call it the "German physics" factor. Anything they could actually do historically, multiple by a factor of about 0.80 to account for the fanboys advising BTS. Just so you know what you are dealing with. Now to the particulars.

The BR-350A was APC, the BR-350B was the improved APCBC (ballistic cap), which significantly improves penetration against sloped armor in particular. The BR-350P is APCR, tungsten penetrator. Of these only the last is exlicitly shown as a separate type of round in CM - the T ammo. The others are lumoed together as AP, and the improvement fielding the B type involved has to show up as improved ammo modeling etc.

In reality, the Germans themselves state that the front of a StuG - 80mm - was readily penetrated by the Russian 76mm out to 500 yards. In CM, they will bounce down to point blank range. We call this the UberStuG, a phenomenon no one knew about until CMBB appeared (because, natch, it is wrong). StuGs are also given tiny rariety numbers even at the time they were the best couple percent of the German fleet (late 1943 e.g.), and very low prices for lack of turret low MG ammo etc. Expect to see about 40 gazillion times more of them than the Germans actually had.

The T-34s get APCR ammo in CM only starting in 1944. Right in time for it not to make much of a difference because the T-34/85s are already out. Combined with the previous, this makes all the 80mm plates encountered in 1943 much tougher than they actually were.

But at least the Russians have the first SU-85s in the second half of that year. Oops, no not really. Because the ammo modeling of the 85mm in calendar 1943 is so poor, you can bang away at a 30/50 StuG from the front at 800 yards, and see one "shell broke up" result after another. Even the guys who advised them on the ammo model admit that is flat wrong. This also applies to the 85mm AA, which the Russians historically used from the Kursk era on as a tank and mech corps heavy AT weapon. In 1944 the ammo modeling improves and they perform like the stats in the window. Before then, they are barely better than the undermodeled 76mm, instead of being the "animal killers" they ought to be.

The only 1943 animal killer is the SU-152. It is given a ROF of 2 rounds a minute. The SU-122 would be fine with HC (HEAT ammo), so it gets 0 to 4 of them, usually the lower. Towed 122s and 152s aren't in the game, direct fire, so those are out as well.

Historically the performance of the Russian 85mm was better than the US 76mm, but both were roughly the same. The US 76mm suffered from "shatter gap" against roughly 100-110mm plate at medium range, that is accurately modeled but extends to too many other weapons and match ups.

Historically, the US 76mm with plain AP penetrated Panther turret fronts at 400 yards. The theoretical penetration was enough to do so at more like 1000 yards, but the shells failed due to the energy of the collision. That is shatter, and it shows up in CM as "shell broke up" results. The larger 85mm that gets more of its basically similar energy from mass (rather than velocity I mean) was much less susceptible to it. That is not shown in CM until 1944.

Historically you'd kill Tigers by flank and close with T-34Cs. You can in CM, but you need ranges around 100m or APCR or both, and flat side angles. In addition, behind armor effect is poor against large tonnage vehicles. You can expect to need 3-5 penetrations to get a kill result. A single T-34C with T ammo placed 100m from a Tiger side facing it and ready to fire, has approximately a 1 in 5 chance of killing the Tiger before the Tiger kills it.

Which is nonsense of course, Tigers had about that operational record against them without such placement, but we simply put up with it.

In 1944 you can use T-34/85s against Panthers. The 85 is OK by then and will KO them through the turret front out to about 600 yards. Occasional partial penetrations at 800, but you really don't want to trade those. Sides are good against the Panther with 85s or 76s.

As for Tigers in 1944, the T-34/85 can do them, but watch out for the hull down ones. The front turret of the Tiger I is modeled as about 200mm about 2/3rds of the time. (That is what the "reinforced turret front" entry means). The upper front hull is only the real 100mm.

As for Tigers in 1943, forget about the real answer the SU-85, they are neutered by ammo modeling. Forget about the large caliber towed gun solution, since the big ones simply aren't shown and the 85mm AA has its ammo neutered. Forget about SU-122s because they have no HEAT. SU-152s work, with dismal rate of fire.

The best answer though is the 57mm ATG, which can kill them under 400m front aspect or more like 600m side aspect, and is stealthy enough to actually get the shots off. Sometimes you need 3 penetrations etc for behind armor effect reasons.

The other useful 1943 weapon is the T-34/57, when rariety is off. Otherwise the rariety forbids it in expense terms.

Some LL items are useful. The 75L38 Shermans will KO StuGs are 500m when the 76L42 Russian guns will not. The Valentine IX is an affordable 6 pdr when rariety is on, though it is less effective than the Russian 57mm and otherwise a pretty crappy tank by midwar (slow, no MG, limited HE, etc). Captured StuGs can do what SU-85s actually did.

The CM counters to cats are assymmetric fighting. Air support is seriously overmodeled in CM and the IL-2 benefits from that more than any other plane in the game. They aren't sufficient against Tigers, but anything less they simple shred (unhistorically, I might add).

The Russian infantry tank hunter teams get RPG grenades starting in mid 1943, 2/3rds of them. Those regularly hit and kill out to 40m. (Molotovs on the other hand are completely useless). AT minefields and pioneer demo charges and flamethrowers are other cat killers. High caliber arty can do it (usually gun damage or immobilization results rather than KO) if they are directly on a TRP, otherwise the responsiveness makes it impossible.

As for the StuGs, take some 57s, or make a network of 76s with cross fire. And make them turn - vehicle rotation is very slow in CM, the one place turretless actually makes a difference. Beware also of the StuG showing only front armor, angled inward so one flank is deep inside German lines, and at an edge so the other is protected by the bottomless pits at the map edge.

You cannot simply apply the Russian historical tactics against German armor in CM. You have to systematically make more use of the air force, of infantry AT and winning the infantry war more generally, of crossfire and ATG ambush, and of a few relatively rare weapons that are CM effective - the 57mm ATG, the SU-152, the T-34/57, LL vehicles. Mass T-34C rushes at Tigers will get masses of T-34s killed and warm the hearts of the Tiger fish-story fanboys who did all this - don't give them the satisfaction."

[Panzer76]

Hehe, havent posted here in a LONG time. Anyways, if you do a search you will find PLENTY of (heated) discussions about this.

But it can basically be explained by this:

Due to modelling restriction, the Stug's front is modelled as the whole front is resistant to the 76mm, while in reality, only parts were. Expect this to change we the eastern front is visited again in cmx2.

[JasonC]

"At ranges under 500 meters, the front armor of the assault gun provided no protection against Russian tank guns" - direct statement of German training documents, explaining why the StuH was useless for anti-tank work, after noting that the gun was inaccurate beyond that distance due to low muzzle velocity.

Every source prior to CMBB itself gave the StuG an advantage in effective range against T-34s, not frontal invulnerability. Performance that the Germans themselves the time only claimed for the Tiger I, is seen in CMBB for a vehicle that costs less than half what a Tiger I costs, and the same price as the vehicle it dominates.

Heck, in CMBB using 1943 ammo, the SU-85 has the performance the T-34 had in reality. And it can't hurt a Tiger I at all, when that was its actual purpose and it could and did achieve it.

The solution is for the Germans to fight in Pz IIIs with 50L60, plus Marders, in 1942, and to fight in Panzer IV longs in 1943. And to avoid using the StuG in either period. Starting in 1944, there is no problem using the StuG - by then the Russians have counters and their ammo modeling has improved (Su-85s work, T-34/85s are out and work, T-34/76s get T ammo, etc). Simple.

[Der Alte Fritz]

I think it is down to scenario designers or players themselves to try to achieve a historical balance. Here are some ideas that I have used in the past to help make the game a little more true to life.

Use StuGs but keep to the earlier fragile models, you still have the range and accuracy advantage but have to be more cautious.

When facing Tigers (and the thicker fronted StuGs) with T-34s, I mix in about a third T-34/57 to even up the score. In reality a very rare vehicle especially in 1941 but balancing.

Import vehicles especially the SU-85 and 85mm AA gun from 1944. Change the parameters of the 1943 game to a 1944 date, pick the vehicle you want, T-34/76, SU-85, etc, change the parameters back to 1943. Gets rid of the 85mm shell shatter problem a treat.

Oh if you think this is biased, then my 1941 German infantry is loaded down with AT weapons, mines, Stukas, and 88mm Flak to help them fend off the dreaded KV-1s.

cheers

[Redwolf]

Keep in mind there are two lengths 76mm T-34 guns:

L/31 on the 1940 model, starting out at 70mm penetration.

L/42 on the 1941 model, starting out at 82mm penetration.

Most people who bash CMBB know this, but some get confused in this little detail and think the former group got them mixed up.

[Wrath of Dagon]

According to this link http://www.battlefield.ru/content/category/6/33/49/lang,en/ it seems very unlikely 76/42 could penetrate 80 mm at 500 m, especially if it's sloped.

[JasonC]

Every contemporary tactical account says they routinely killed StuGs inside 500 meters.

They routinely killed StuGs inside 500 meters.

The rest is spin, rhetoric, and tail covering.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Those figures look excellent.

But the front of a StuG is not a uniform 80mm slope and combat reports from both sides report them dying at 500m.

From these figures T-34s vs the 80mm side of a Tiger should penetrate at 300m+ with A and 500m with B and 500m+ with P ammo.

I think we will have to agree to differ over this one.

[Tero]

Every contemporary tactical account says they routinely killed StuGs inside 500 meters.

They routinely killed StuGs inside 500 meters.

The rest is spin, rhetoric, and tail covering.

Yes. They killed when they could hit them. There is more in play than mere techspec of the weapons and armour.

IRL Stug/StuH got the upper hand due to their low profile when in hull down position. The Russian optics were not as good as the German. The Germans had different crew layout which allowed them to operate the vehicle more effeciently (T-34/76 commander doubled as the gunner as opposed to Stug having the dedicated commander and gunner). So the T-34/76 vs Stug stand off was not down to just how hard the gun could hit the other vehicle and how well the armour could withstand a hit.

In CM series the turreted vehicles get preferential treatment over the turretless vehicle when it comes to hit propability calculation, especially when in hull down position. And in CMBB the T-34/76 does kill the Stug at normal combat ranges. When it gets to score a hit.

[Redwolf]

According to this link http://www.battlefield.ru/content/category/6/33/49/lang,en/ it seems very unlikely 76/42 could penetrate 80 mm at 500 m, especially if it's sloped.

Of course it doesn't do 80mm at 30 degrees.

[dieseltaylor]

Always try to play with variable rarity on - it makes everything less predictable. Valentine's actually can be quite cheap and act as mobile ATG's but remember they should ambush rather than go head to head.

[JasonC]

StuGs that are vulnerable at 500 meters or less would still dominate T-34s. For the right reasons. The German crews cite low profile, good optics, sufficient hitting power for their own gun, preferred to open fire at 800 meters range to maximize surprise and first round hit chance while still being in their own safe range, etc. Their own propaganda does not stress frontal arc safety. Instead it says "the life of an assault artilleryman is short but full of interest". Direct quote, German propaganda not Russian.

Meanwhile, Panzer IV longs are superior to T-34s in every material respect, except marginally in speed on "fast". The front hull bounces the T-34 hits down to pointblank. The turret is hit only a third of the time. Their own hits always go in. They have 3 man turrets with cupolas and superior optics, plus fast turret speed. Any *allied* tanker would kill to have a vehicle with these advantages over its typical German opponent.

But German players rarely take them and consider them nearly worthless, because they are used to the crutch of overmodeled and underpriced StuGs, or the uberness of Tiger Is in the only era they actually were nearly impenetrable (but very far from invulnerable).

The solution for every sporting German player is simple and requires no change to any code or in game value. All it takes is not being a gamey jerk. In 1942, you can have a kill everything gun on an SP chassis cheaply, but take it as a Marder and accept vulnerability as a cost. 1942 was the era of the Marder as heavy AT hitter, and they vastly outnumbered the long StuGs in that period. StuGs only became a dominant vehicle numerically after the switch of III chassis production to them in 1943.

And take Panzer III longs, which are also overmodeled (the 20+50 front armor is approximately correct for what 30+50 actually did), but livably so. Panzer III longs are rough equals of T-34w, both bouncing most shots at long range but capable of killing close enough.

In 1943, the Germans deserve the outperformance of Panzer IVs. Use them. They were the bulk of the Panzer fleet in that era and are a more accurate representation of the degree of outperformance the Germans really had then, than StuGs and Tigers everywhere. Save Tigers for rare cases and specify beforehand that it is no holds barred, and play with rariety off to allow Russian counters to them. That too, is accurate. There were 4 times as many Russian 57mm ATGs than Tiger Is, but you won't see that in CM with rariety on and cherry picking armor games.

The same methods should be used in 1941 by Russian players. Don't take KVs all the time. Only use them if rariety off and no holds barred have been specified beforehand. Taking T-34s is OK.

Deliberate misuse of the least accurately modeled items is just as exploitative as crestline-gun abuse or mega HE abuse. More so really, because it is more common and makes more games pointless.

If your opponent won't abide by these recommendations blackball him. He isn't worth your time anyway, if it can't drive a Panzer IV.

[Tux]

Jason (or indeed anyone else with the appropriate knowledge), if one were looking to extend the above 'house rules' through late 1943, 1944 and early 45, what would you recommend? I don't know nearly enough about relative vehicle rarity during the war to be able to estimate for myself.

For example, once 1944 is reached, is it 'no holds barred' for either side? I seem to remember the German player should stick to Panther Gs to allow long 122s to penetrate their glacis fronts, but how common should Panthers be in the first place? How about Tigers, Konigstigers and the heavy Jagdpanzers?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can spare.

[JasonC]

Late 1943 is still 1943 and the recommendation I already gave still applies.

The spring of 1944 is the only borderline case, through April or so. For simplicity I recommend lifting the rule at the 1944 border, but if you want you can wait until April 1944 to lift it. By then the Russians have IS-2s that aren't the neutered early model, and T-34/85s are reasonable rariety. They can take care of themselves from that point on.

I don't see a need to restrict King Tigers or other ubercats. They are expensive and by the time they are out, the Russians have AFVs that can counter them. In terms of modeling they deserve their edge. In terms of rariety they are no doubt too common, and a realism minded German player should use Panthers instead, when he wants improved late war armor. But it isn't worth getting rule lawyer-ee about.

Remember that there are other categories in which the Russians are favored - better SMGs, underpriced and overmodeled Sturmoviks, cheap heavy HE if used map fire. So it is OK if the Germans have an armor edge some of the time. Just not the equivalent of Elephants for the cost of T-34s all through 1942-3, during the decisive battles of the war.

[Tux]

Excellent, thank you JasonC. I look forward to applying these rules-of-thumb in some fights against my regular opponents.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Those figures look excellent.

But the front of a StuG is not a uniform 80mm slope and combat reports from both sides report them dying at 500m.

From these figures T-34s vs the 80mm side of a Tiger should penetrate at 300m+ with A and 500m with B and 500m+ with P ammo.

I think we will have to agree to differ over this one.

It says at 500 m with B 80% penetration was 75 mm and that's at 90 degree angle, so I don't think it would penetrate very often. It also says in 1941-43 actual values were much less because of poor ammo quality. In this article on the development of SU-85, it says T34/76 could penetrate Tiger armor only at suicidally close ranges: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/64/45/lang,en/ This is a pro-Russian website with access to Russian documents, there's no reason for them to donwplay the capability of Russian tanks. And isn't that what happened at Prohorovka, when the Tigers wiped out two Russian tank armies, in spite of repeated suicidal attacks by T34's?

[Der Alte Fritz]

I think that you have misunderstood me, I was saying that these figures looked too high.

To refer to 'Kursk' by Zetterling: Sept '42 the Tiger first becomes operational, is captured and comes as a real shock to the Russians.

April '43 they conduct firing tests which shock the Russians as none of the shells can penetrate at point blank range.

The ammo improves during the summer and by Kursk they are penetrating at about 2-300m some of the time. The Kursk counters to the Tiger are therefore asymetric ones such as TH, mines, SU-152 (only a handful on the Central Front) the 85mm AA gun, etc.

Sept 43 you see the introduction of tungsten ammo and the T34 can now kill Tigers from the side under 500m but the ammo is really scarce.

Also this month sees the introduction of the SU-85 now able to kill Tigers from the front at 500m and more from the side and the increase in numbers of 57mm AT guns and T34-57 tanks by the end of the year helps.

So Tiger superiority runs from Sept 42 through to Sept 43 with absolute superiority until June 43.

In my opinion, the game has absolute superiority from Sept to Sept 43 (when T ammo comes out) and superiority until March 44 when the 85mm guns shells stop breaking up. They are late by maybe three months.

[Wrath of Dagon]

When did the 80 mm long barrel StuG appear?

[Der Alte Fritz]

StuG IIIG first came out Dec 1942 with 50+30mm armour and came out in the 80mm version in August 1943 (represented in the game by StuG III G middle) 7,720 in total produced between Dec 42 and March 45.

The F and F/8 came out as 50mm and had the extra 30mm bolted on from June '42 to existing vehicles. This is the 6th 7th and 8th production run of the StuG III. Total of runs 359 for F and 334 for F/8. So not large numbers of these around.

StuG IV came out in Dec 43.

[Redwolf]

You can't directly draw StuG conclusions from Tiger action or Tiger firing tests. The sides of the Tiger are speced at 80mm, but in practice they were ticker on all Tigers that I am aware of have been measured.

[JasonC]

All Russian test numbers are for 80% penetration, all western ones are for 50% penetration. Russian tests against test plate are firing at Russian quality 460 brinell steel, German steel is much softer, even the face hardened kind being 2/3rds that figure over an interior hardness half that figure. StuG armor quality is not Tiger armor quality, nor is it 82mm, nor is 30+50 stronger than 80mm single plate through the game treats it as such, the game blends figures for BR-350A and BR-350B, the latter capped and significantly outperforming against face hardened armor as a result, and available from the summer of 1943 on. The game doesn't show the Russians getting APCR until 1944, but there are dead Panthers at Kursk with subcaliber holes in them. No one ever reports 85mm AP failing against plain 80mm fronts, it overpenetrates it by 25% at least, but in game even the 85mm routinely fails against 30+50 StuG fronts due to overmodeled shatter gap and undermodeled Russian ammo, which doesn't correct until 1944.

Then the Russians had many times more 57mm ATGs than the Germans had Tigers, but the way rariety is done it measures within categories on the same side, so the existence of a flock of Russian 45mm ATGs makes 57mm ones unaffordable with rariety on, while Tigers are available with +10 rarieties in periods where they were the top 2% of the fleet.

Russian field guns large enough to kill Tigers are not depicted in the game because they were supposed to fire indirect. So long 122mms they actually had in every corps artillery park aren't available until 1944 on AFVs. The Russian 85mm AA had equal AT performance to the German 88mm and was used by them in every mechanized corps as an AT weapon; in game they suffer the same undermodeling in 1943 as the SU-85s plus high rariety. The Russians had 152mm gun-howitzers towed from the start of the war, but only a handful of SU-152 are depicted with them through the end of 1943. Just as the Germans dealt with KVs and T-34s in 1941-2 using 88mm Flak, 105mm Kanone, 150mm howitzers firing HC, and 105mm likewise, the Russians regarded artillery fronts as the primary means of AT defense. In the game, a handful of undermodeled 85mm are the top of their gun park, and the bulk at neutered 76mm.

As for the Tiger's period of "invulnerability", it was very far from invulnerable, even when it was impenetrable by tank weapons and the most common front line ATGs. In combat, one routinely sees Tiger running strength fall by half or more within days of commitment. Few written off completely, ever, but knocked out of running status rapidly and regularly. The day of Prok. for instance, supposedly a high point of Tiger invulnerabiliy, there were 3 running Tigers in SS Pz Krps by the end of the day. Why? Hail fire, artillery, and mines.

But we can leave aside the Tiger myths, though I have no doubt they were the motivation for much of the overmodeling seen in the game. The coincidence that a Tiger side and a StuG front have similar thickness, was enough to force the designers to create unhistorical uberStuGs in the process of trying to make Tigers invulnerable.

It would be fair to say every single consideration in favor of Russian AT performance in 1943 was excluded from the game, and every possible consideration in favor of German armor performance at the same date was included.

StuG areas with only 50mm coverage - excluded

Russian subcaliber ammo - excluded until 1944

layered plate modeled as stronger than uniform

Russian 85mm "shell broke up" endlessly until 1944

Russian "round" armor depicted as weaker than 30 degrees in practice

German armor quality rated 95-100

Much harder Russian steel considered low armor quality (only true vs. overmatch, not when it counts vs. e.g. 50L42, 50L60)

Germans penetrate 1941 T-34s from the front at 900m with 50L42

In reality their documents say get within 300m from the side *and* use APCR

Etc etc ad nausem. It is a fools errand trying to defend this stuff. But we don't need any code changes, players being sensible is all it takes to get the best eastern front wargame there is.

Russians 1941 - don't use KVs without prior "no holds barred" agreement and rariety off

Germans 1942-3 - don't use Tigers without prior "NHB" and rariety off

Germans 1942 - use Marders and Pz III longs or Pz IV shorts

Germans 1943 - use Panzer IV longs, not StuG longs

Dirt simple player-done balance, avoids all the mismodel issues.

Accept already and move on. Every Russian side player already has, long since.

[Tero]

By JasonC

StuG armor quality is not Tiger armor quality,

In-game or IRL ? IRL specifically selected armour plate was not AFAIK slated for specific vehicle types. Hence armour plate quality should be treated as equal in both vehicles.

the game blends figures for BR-350A and BR-350B, the latter capped and significantly outperforming against face hardened armor as a result, and available from the summer of 1943 on. The game doesn't show the Russians getting APCR until 1944, but there are dead Panthers at Kursk with subcaliber holes in them.

From http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet.html

45mm APCR projectiles were available in April 1942. Source: Zaloga, Steven J. and Ness, Leland S.: Red Army Handbook 1939-1945.

57mm and 76mm APCR projectiles were accepted into service in October 1943. In 1943 a maximum of 8 rounds per vehicle were issued to units deployed in defensive positions where the Germans were expected to attack. By the Spring of 1944 all vehicles had at least 4 rounds each. Source: Russian Military Zone. Zaloga in the Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 states that 76mm APCR projectiles were issued from August 1942, however Valeriy Potapov from the Russian Military Zone tells me that production was delayed until October 1943 due to their very low quality.

No one ever reports 85mm AP failing against plain 80mm fronts, it overpenetrates it by 25% at least, but in game even the 85mm routinely fails against 30+50 StuG fronts due to overmodeled shatter gap and undermodeled Russian ammo, which doesn't correct until 1944.

What is the problem with that ? The spaced armour was designed to expend its energy on the first layer of armour enabling the second layer to withstand that much less powerful impact. The quality issues with the ammo were real and that should reflect on how the layered armour works (the way it was designed to work).

A similar case could made when it comes to Finnish (Maxim) HMG stopage rate in the game. The Maxim stopage rate in the game is modelled after the WWI era cloth belt used by the British and the Red Army. The Finnish army had adobted the non-disintegrating metal belt before WWII which lowered the stopage rate considerably.

Then the Russians had many times more 57mm ATGs than the Germans had Tigers, but the way rariety is done it measures within categories on the same side, so the existence of a flock of Russian 45mm ATGs makes 57mm ones unaffordable with rariety on, while Tigers are available with +10 rarieties in periods where they were the top 2% of the fleet.

Rarity in CMBB is relative to the armies own OoB, not what they were up against. Given the relatively low over all number of tanks in the German inventory as opposed to the huge number of 45mm ATG's in the Red Army inventory the rarities of both the Tiger and the 57mm ATG are good enough.

Russian field guns large enough to kill Tigers are not depicted in the game because they were supposed to fire indirect. So long 122mms they actually had in every corps artillery park aren't available until 1944 on AFVs.

The weapon of choice for HE direct fire support in the Red Army was the 76mm regimental gun.

The Russian 85mm AA had equal AT performance to the German 88mm and was used by them in every mechanized corps as an AT weapon in game they suffer the same undermodeling in 1943 as the SU-85s plus high rariety.

What is your source on this ? The captured 85mm guns were rebored to 88mm and used by the Germans the way they used their own 88's but I have not seen too many reports of Red Army having 85mm AA guns (nor their other AA assets like the Quad Maxim, 20mm, 37mm guns) in the front line doing direct ground support work on a regular basis.

The ammo issue is mute, the rarity is in line with the Red Army doctrine.

The Russians had 152mm gun-howitzers towed from the start of the war, but only a handful of SU-152 are depicted with them through the end of 1943.

Artillery was not supposed to act as AT. The Red Army was more strict on following doctrine than the Germans.

Just as the Germans dealt with KVs and T-34s in 1941-2 using 88mm Flak, 105mm Kanone, 150mm howitzers firing HC, and 105mm likewise, the Russians regarded artillery fronts as the primary means of AT defense.

Before Kursk they did not have a chance to put that into practise in any meaningful way.

In the game, a handful of undermodeled 85mm are the top of their gun park, and the bulk at neutered 76mm.

That is how their doctrine worked. The bulk of the 76mm guns initially available were regimental IG with 45mm ATG to deal with the enemy armour.

The coincidence that a Tiger side and a StuG front have similar thickness, was enough to force the designers to create unhistorical uberStuGs in the process of trying to make Tigers invulnerable. It would be fair to say every single consideration in favor of Russian AT performance in 1943 was excluded from the game, and every possible consideration in favor of German armor performance at the same date was included.

Lets remember the CMBB was built on CMBO. In CMBO the Allies got the preferential treatment (StuG only cosmetically hull down, never malfuctioning stabilizers "partially on at all times" etc). Design choices were made after debate.

StuG areas with only 50mm coverage - excluded

IIRC to take into account the variable slopes in parts of the Stug armour. The center of mass aiming is used to calculate hits. These variations are significant enough to warrant cutting this particular corner.

Russian subcaliber ammo - excluded until 1944

Given the facts a sound choice.

layered plate modeled as stronger than uniform

Well, it is not significantly weaker when the quality issues of the Soviet ammo are considered.

Russian 85mm "shell broke up" endlessly until 1944

It seems it did have quality issues IRL.

Russian "round" armor depicted as weaker than 30 degrees in practice

You assume the round armour is cast. The weld seam was often located visibly in the round section of the armour making it weaker.

German armor quality rated 95-100

What should it be then ?

Much harder Russian steel considered low armor quality (only true vs. overmatch, not when it counts vs. e.g. 50L42, 50L60)

Hard armour plate is brittle.

Germans penetrate 1941 T-34s from the front at 900m with 50L42

They do ? Man, I have been unlucky. All the long range kills I have gotten have been mobility kills.

In reality their documents say get within 300m from the side *and* use APCR

IRL they preferred to lure them in the FLAK sights when ever possible.

Russians 1941 - don't use KVs without prior "no holds barred" agreement and rariety off

Germans 1942-3 - don't use Tigers without prior "NHB" and rariety off

Germans 1942 - use Marders and Pz III longs or Pz IV shorts

Germans 1943 - use Panzer IV longs, not StuG longs

All in all sound advice. I'd allow StuG's though when it is appropriate ie. when the German force composition is infantry heavy. In Pure armour selection the number of StuG's should be limited.

[dieseltaylor]

The remark on the HMG's I thought was wrong. All the HMG's appear to be penalised to fall in with the changing of barrels on the German MG's. The British WW1 HMG's were famous for firing all day so that has been ignored with all HMG's being equally prone to "jams".

I think a generic model was applied across the game.

[Tero]

By dieseltaylor

The remark on the HMG's I thought was wrong. All the HMG's appear to be penalised to fall in with the changing of barrels on the German MG's. The British WW1 HMG's were famous for firing all day so that has been ignored with all HMG's being equally prone to "jams".

I'll have to keep an eye out for the German HMG performance but I have a notion they do not "JAM" when they are changing barrels.

Also, IIRC in CMBO the British HMG's did not suffer anywhere near the stopage rate the Maxims in the CMBB suffer. I do not have the source on me but there was an issue during WWII with the British cloth belts (storage grease or some such). The Red Army cloth belts were notoriously unreliable (well, at least in the Finnish army circles ) if not handeled properly. Captured belts could be used as is straight from the box but whenever possible the ammo was transferred to metal belts.

I think a generic model was applied across the game.

Could be. I brought the thing up just to point out that compromises are common in the game.