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

[JasonC]

"in CMBB the T-34/76 does kill the Stug at normal combat ranges. When it gets to score a hit"

Ha ha ha. Only 50mm front model StuGs, or flank hits.

[Stalins Organ]

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 problem with that is:

1/ it isn't spaced armour. It is 30mm plate bolted on the front of the normal 50mm plate - there's a photo of one post war here and

2/ 2 plates of armour are not as good as 1 plate of the same total thickness vs AP (do a search for the topic on the CM1 forums - there's heaps of discussion on it...or see here) and

3/ Spaced armour was designed to allow the jet from HEAT rounds to dissipate in the gap between - it can have some effects on solid shot (see the 2nd link above) or not, depending upon the exact configuration/spacing of the plates and the size and nature of the shot hitting them.

4/ most spaced armour consists of a thin exterior to detonate chemical energy shells (HEAT, HESH/HEP), and a thicker internal plate to defeat kinetic energy projectiles - this is because the exterior plate has more area than the internal one, so making it thick enough to defeat any significant kinetic projectiles carries a significant weight penalty. the thin exterior plate would normally have no effect on significant kinetic energy projectiles such as the 85mm.

[Tero]

By Stalin's Organist

1/ it isn't spaced armour. It is 30mm plate bolted on the front of the normal 50mm plate

True.

2/ 2 plates of armour are not as good as 1 plate of the same total thickness vs AP (do a search for the topic on the CM1 forums - there's heaps of discussion on it...or see here)

Nice little caveat though :

[DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]

3/ Spaced armour was designed to allow the jet from HEAT rounds to dissipate in the gap between - it can have some effects on solid shot (see the 2nd link above) or not, depending upon the exact configuration/spacing of the plates and the size and nature of the shot hitting them.

Lets not forget the quality variations in the ammo.

4/ most spaced armour consists of a thin exterior to detonate chemical energy shells (HEAT, HESH/HEP), and a thicker internal plate to defeat kinetic energy projectiles - this is because the exterior plate has more area than the internal one, so making it thick enough to defeat any significant kinetic projectiles carries a significant weight penalty.

Restored StuG used in the film Tali-Ihantala at http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531014/ps531014.html

Note how the heavy StuG sinks into the grass.

the thin exterior plate would normally have no effect on significant kinetic energy projectiles such as the 85mm.

Too bad the 76,2mm gun/ammo performance is being debated.

Nevertheless

In one caliber the reduction of energy due to loss of the cap before reaching the interior plate may result in failure to perforate, whereas in a larger caliber the loss may have a less pronounced effect on the ultimate performance, resulting in perforation of 2 plates of the same quality and equally well matched.

With the plates bolted together there is no one caliber gap but beefed up armour is better than not beefed up armour.

[JasonC]

Every tank and mech corps had a special heavy AT battalion attached (not the standard regiment of motorized 76mm, an additional asset), equipped with 85mm guns. The Russians did not produce a towed dedicated ATG in 85mm caliber until after the war - the D-44 was in design but production did not begin until the second half of 1945, after the war was over. They did of course produce 85mm tank guns for the KV-85 and the T-34/85 - which were based on the already highly successful and mass produced 85mm AA gun. Which is what equipped those special heavy AT battalions in the mechanized corps. Just as the Germans had a Flak battalion with 88s in every Panzer division, the Russians had these 85mm AA battalions, meant to be used in a ground AT role, attached to every mechanized and armor corps. From late 1942 on.

In 1942 the Russians produced 2761 85mm AA guns. In 1943 that rose to 3713 additional pieces and another 1903 in 1944. This was more than enough to put a battalion of them in every mobile corps, even with most used in army defense zones, fixed installations and rear areas in the AA role. It had a muzzle velocity of 792 meters per second with a 9.3 kg shell. Those are exactly the same figures as for the German 88mm Flak (790 and 9.2). There is no reason beyond German physics bias to regard its AT ability as any different from that of the more famous German gun. And the Russians used them for ground action, formally designating the involved formation as tank killing in mission. Tiger Is are no more heavily armored than KV-1s, they were more effective because they were much better armed, but that makes little difference against an AA gun. The shell broke up treatment until 1944 is German physics. The Russians report instead only that shatter issues could limit the effective range against Tigers to 950 meters. In CMBB it is more like 500 meters against a 30+50 front StuG, which is what they were actually doing with 76mm.

And no, Russian doctrine was not that heavier artillery pieces only chucked HE from the rear, it was instead that all routes passable to enemy tanks be covered by multiple overlapping AT regions, deeply layered, and incorporating every field piece in the sector regardless of command or caliber. Yes the lighter pieces were forward and the 76mm was the most numerous by far. But there were plenty of heavier pieces which were fully capable of holing a German heavy, and would fire direct if any approached them.

They also dropped HE on them certainly. There are dead Elephants at Kursk KOed by 203mm howitzer HE, and not every 152mm AP came from an SU. There is a reason they wanted that gun SP, they already knew what it could do. They made HEAT rounds for their 122mm divisional howitzers from May 1942, I doubt to toss over the horizon, and more than can have been used by the small SU-122 fleet. Their excellent A-19 122mm guns, whose staple work was long range counter-battery, had APHE made throughout the war (BR-471), and could penetrate 100mm sloped 30 degrees at 2 km, and formed the basis for the IS-2 and ISU-122 gun.

As for the lame defense of the rariety system, it is just silly. There were 10 57mm ATGs for every Tiger in the east overall, but the Russians pay 50% higher rariety costs for the weapon 10 times as common. Do you observe that ratio of their presence over all the games you have played of CMBB? Yes they were produced later in the war, from mid 1943 on. But that is because the threat they were needed against were late war items, too. The window when Tigers were present but this counter wasn't is all of 6 months long and all of 300 vehicles in size. But playing CMBB with cherry pickers you'd get the idea that every fight occurred in that one period and had a pack of Tigers facing 45mm and 76mm guns exclusively.

[Der Alte Fritz]

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.

85mm AAG KS-12 obr.1939. AA gun. RVGK AT units. (Red Army Handbook - Zaloga table 4.3):

08/56 20 x 85mm AA gun Seperate Regt - 17 formed by Jan 1942

8/70 8 x 45mm 8 x 85mm Seperate Regt - 23 formed by Jan1942

(Kursk A statistical analysis - Zetterling)

table 3.27 Organisation of Soviet Tank Corps July 1943

(Separate) AT Bn 12 x 85mm AT guns

table 3.32 Organisation of Soviet Mech Corps July 1943

(Separate) AT Bn 12 x 85mm AT guns

"The (seperate)anti-tank battalion with 12 x 85mm AT guns was an emergency measure to deal with the German Tiger tank."

Did they actually get into combat?

Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk CSI Report No11 David Glantz:

"On the evening of the 5-6th July, the 25th GRC commander ordered his second echelon 73rd GRD to reinforce the 78th GRD... The latter was reinforced by a battery of 85mm AA guns and the 1438th SU Regt equipped with 122mm and 152mm SP guns."

Did the Soviets use heavier AT guns?

"Even Stavka could not resist the urge to fine-tune the organisation. In June 1943 they ordered the activation of three heavy tank-destroyer AT regiments, each of 551men and 15 x 107mm guns in five batteries."

[Tero]

By Der Alte Fritz

85mm AAG KS-12 obr.1939. AA gun. RVGK AT units. (Red Army Handbook - Zaloga table 4.3):

08/56 20 x 85mm AA gun Seperate Regt - 17 formed by Jan 1942

8/70 8 x 45mm 8 x 85mm Seperate Regt - 23 formed by Jan1942

You don't happen to have the number of Flak M39 ® on you ? That would give a scope on how many of the heavy AA regiments were overrun by 1943.

"The (seperate)anti-tank battalion with 12 x 85mm AT guns was an emergency measure to deal with the German Tiger tank."

Did they actually get into combat?

Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk CSI Report No11 David Glantz:

"On the evening of the 5-6th July, the 25th GRC commander ordered his second echelon 73rd GRD to reinforce the 78th GRD... The latter was reinforced by a battery of 85mm AA guns and the 1438th SU Regt equipped with 122mm and 152mm SP guns."

That leaves a 2,5 year gap between June 1941 and July 1943 (Kursk) when the 85mm AA gun was NOT used as a ground support weapon on a regular basis. I have not found any data on the availability of UBR-365 AP rounds for the AA gun prior to the gun being converted to tank gun use.

Did the Soviets use heavier AT guns?

"Even Stavka could not resist the urge to fine-tune the organisation. In June 1943 they ordered the activation of three heavy tank-destroyer AT regiments, each of 551men and 15 x 107mm guns in five batteries."

The 107 M1910 gun as AT gun was a stop gap measure.

[Tero]

By JasonC

Every tank and mech corps had a special heavy AT battalion attached (not the standard regiment of motorized 76mm, an additional asset), equipped with 85mm guns.

As of when ? My edition of Red Army Handbook has only 25/37mm AA guns in the tank/mech corps OoB (incidentaly mech corps have only 8 57mm AT guns from Jan 1st 1944 on as opposed to 36 45mm AT guns from Sept 1942 on). It also states that the 85mm AA gun was rarely used in AT role and only on special occasions (like Kursk).

Which is what equipped those special heavy AT battalions in the mechanized corps.

I can find data on these special heavy AT formations only around Kursk. What is your source on them ?

Just as the Germans had a Flak battalion with 88s in every Panzer division, the Russians had these 85mm AA battalions, meant to be used in a ground AT role, attached to every mechanized and armor corps. From late 1942 on.

Sorry. The only organic AA regiment assets at Corps/Army level I can find is 12,7mm and 37mm. In fact no refrences to organic 85mm AA assets are in the organizational tables.

In 1942 the Russians produced 2761 85mm AA guns. In 1943 that rose to 3713 additional pieces and another 1903 in 1944. This was more than enough to put a battalion of them in every mobile corps, even with most used in army defense zones, fixed installations and rear areas in the AA role.

That maybe true. The only thing is my edition of Red Army Handbook does not show any such 85mm AA gun equipped formation existing in the OoB.

There is no reason beyond German physics bias to regard its AT ability as any different from that of the more famous German gun. And the Russians used them for ground action, formally designating the involved formation as tank killing in mission.

That is true. Except the Red Army did not use them in the specifically assigned AT role except on special occasions like the Kursk battles.

Tiger Is are no more heavily armored than KV-1s, they were more effective because they were much better armed, but that makes little difference against an AA gun.

Well, the AA gun has to have dedicated AP rounds to be effective against the armour. IIRC only the Germans had their AA guns have ground fire suitable carriages and AP rounds available as a design feature from the conception.

The shell broke up treatment until 1944 is German physics.

That is BS. Where is the data that supports the Soviet ammo quality was up to the task prior to 1944.

The Russians report instead only that shatter issues could limit the effective range against Tigers to 950 meters. In CMBB it is more like 500 meters against a 30+50 front StuG, which is what they were actually doing with 76mm.

The 76,2mm or 85mm ammo ?

And no, Russian doctrine was not that heavier artillery pieces only chucked HE from the rear, it was instead that all routes passable to enemy tanks be covered by multiple overlapping AT regions, deeply layered, and incorporating every field piece in the sector regardless of command or caliber.

And they could do that where but Kursk ?

Yes the lighter pieces were forward and the 76mm was the most numerous by far. But there were plenty of heavier pieces which were fully capable of holing a German heavy, and would fire direct if any approached them.

The thing is the heavier artillery was not in the organic OoB. At Corps/divisional level they only had 82/120mm mortars, 76mm and in the case of infantry Coprs/Divisions 122mm howitzers and later on M-13 rocket launchers. The heavy stuff was in separate units not to be used as MLD units.

They also dropped HE on them certainly. There are dead Elephants at Kursk KOed by 203mm howitzer HE, and not every 152mm AP came from an SU. There is a reason they wanted that gun SP, they already knew what it could do. They made HEAT rounds for their 122mm divisional howitzers from May 1942, I doubt to toss over the horizon, and more than can have been used by the small SU-122 fleet. Their excellent A-19 122mm guns, whose staple work was long range counter-battery, had APHE made throughout the war (BR-471), and could penetrate 100mm sloped 30 degrees at 2 km, and formed the basis for the IS-2 and ISU-122 gun.

True. But what about places outside Kursk ?

There were 10 57mm ATGs for every Tiger in the east overall, but the Russians pay 50% higher rariety costs for the weapon 10 times as common.

The 45mm ATG was (say) 100-200% more common than the 57mm. That is what they had. And when did the 57mm ATG actually go head to head against a Tiger ? Sure as hell a lot less frequently than a 45mm ATG or a 76,2mm field gun.

Do you observe that ratio of their presence over all the games you have played of CMBB? Yes they were produced later in the war, from mid 1943 on. But that is because the threat they were needed against were late war items, too. The window when Tigers were present but this counter wasn't is all of 6 months long and all of 300 vehicles in size. But playing CMBB with cherry pickers you'd get the idea that every fight occurred in that one period and had a pack of Tigers facing 45mm and 76mm guns exclusively.

That does not change the fact that the rarity factor in the game is based on what your side has, not what the other side has.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

two homogenous plates resist less than one, but two face hardened plates resist more. i'm not sure but i think those StuG plates were face hardened.

i recall that Tiger plates were indeed different material (hardness and processes involved).

Soviet armor quality varied greatly. some would be of dramatically lesser quality than German armor, some better than German. i think CMBB makes all Soviet armor quality considerably lower than German.

the StuG front overmodelling / Soviet 76mm undermodelling is definately there.

the 85mm undermodelling is real as well.

Jason doesn't mention it, but in my experience Soviet 122mm is undermodelled as well.

some Soviet ballistic caps are not the hard nose types which have improved effect against face hardened plates -- those ballistic caps are there only for aerodynamical effects. so one must be careful which are "real" BCs and which not.

i also believe that overmatching is overmodelled.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think the real problem here is that you can cherry pick equipment, which a real commander would not be able to do, thus you get ahistorical results.

[dieseltaylor]

WoD

This highlights the reason why having casualties on is a good thing.

Firstly it is historically accurate.

Secondly cherry-pickers better start buying platoons as buying one of an item may not give you any.

Thirdly on larger maps being rich in uber forces but with little frontage you are liable to be flanked

Fourthly, the extra points available allow purchases above what is normally possible

Fifthly, players can no longer easily calculate their opponents purchases against BF's parameters

I think it is a great travesty in what is meant to be a historical game the default setting, and a lot of scenarios, provide 100% complete forces.

: )

[Der Alte Fritz]

That leaves a 2,5 year gap between June 1941 and July 1943 (Kursk) when the 85mm AA gun was NOT used as a ground support weapon on a regular basis. I have not found any data on the availability of UBR-365 AP rounds for the AA gun prior to the gun being converted to tank gun use.

Weapons of WW2 - Chris Bishop

"Both the '39 and '44 85mm AA guns were designed from the outset to be used as anti-armour weapons in the same manner as the German 88mm AA gun."

Kursk Hitlers Greatest Gamble - Walter Scott Dunn

30 battalions of 85mm anti-tank AA guns were formed for use with Tank and Mech Corps in April 1943, provided with special crews trained in AT fighting. 3rd, 9th and 16th Tank Corps received their battalions in June 1943.

Russian Battlefield site

"The first Soviet 85mm tank gun was introduced in 1939. It was mounted experimentally on the T-28 and KV series tanks, but was dropped from production for a number of reasons. In late 1941 and early 1942, Soviet engineers independently designed numerous variants of the 85mm tank gun, however, it was at this time the opinion of the NKV and NKTP that this was not a practical avenue of investigation due to the greater cost of existing 85mm ammunition over similar 76mm ammunition, also there was no 85 mm HE projectile developed but only a fragmentation."

Regarding the development of the SU-85

"That is why, by the GKO order from May 5, 1943, a F.F.Petrov's design bureau has started works on adapting the 85 mm AA gun model 1939 for further rearm with it SU-122. Simultaneously, the TsAKB (a design bureau lead by V.Grabin) has started their works on rearming SU-122 with already existed 85 mm S-18 gun. Initially, that has been developed for KV heavy tanks."

So the chronology is Tiger I appears Sept 1942, first one is captured 16th January 1943 and tested at firing grounds against current Soviet guns. In April 1943, 85mm AT units are formed to counter it and are in the field by June. Work starts on the SU-85 in May. That is a pretty good turn around by any organisation and seems to indicate that they had the ammunition to hand. The Soviet experience with 85mm AT guns was pre-war and quite extensive. So they had a counter which they deployed when the Tiger appeared. Did not use the 85mm much before that because they had plenty of 76mm guns doing an adequate job.

cheers

[Wrath of Dagon]

So if the Russian 85 mm was as good as German 88, does that mean the T34/85 had the same armor penetration as a Tiger? Because I've never heard that before. Also the Russian battlefield site says the Tiger had better penetration than an IS2.

[dieseltaylor]

My guess is better shells given size and velocity were similar. In game the M43 T34 is marginal head-on to the Tiger whilst the M44 has chances to 500 metres. Seems reasonable.

The thread concentrates on penetration, and in battle getting any shot off was the primary thought rather than poncing around for the ideal position. Nice if you could arrange it though and well worth trying to engineer. Not that you often see it in CM games!

However that is to overlook the total package in a tank that makes some far better than others. Acquiring your target and killing it before they can nail you is important - in fact vital. And the Tiger was a very good tank to fight from.

Tactics - like commander head up etc and highly trained crews also make a very large difference to an outcome - in RL and in CM.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Correction: What Battlefield actually said was AP for Tiger and IS2 was more or less the same.

[Bigduke6]

I think I can contribute a little to this thread.

Sorry. The only organic AA regiment assets at Corps/Army level I can find is 12,7mm and 37mm. In fact no refrences to organic 85mm AA assets are in the organizational tables.

This I believe is because 85mm AAA battalions were a Front and even a Stavka asset. Therefore, a reasonable explaination for why 85mm towed gun was rare in a direct-fire anti-tank role, was because the Soviets kept the weapons well behind the lines unless there was a really critical reason in favor - a Citadel and the massive German technical advantage in armor in June '43 and Zhukov's direct participation in the planning process, are pretty durn good reasons.

Another point to keep in mind in why the 85mm doesn't show up frequently in the DF role in historical accounts is, the 76mm was considered by the Soviets capable of stopping pretty much all German armor. True as far as the Soviets were concerned say in mid '43 you had to let a StuG get in close, or hit a Panther from the side, or a Tiger close from the side, but the battlefield is big and ZiS-3 is incredibly common. So why bring up the 85mm?

That is BS. Where is the data that supports the Soviet ammo quality was up to the task prior to 1944.

There is in the web copies of actual Red Army training materials showing AP ammo was expected to destroy German panzers at normal combat ranges - an impossible expectation if the ammo sucks as bad as it is supposed to per CMBB.

But a simpler, "reality check" way to judge Soviet AP ammo quality is to look at the results of the Kursk and Orel battles, count the smashed panzers, and then ask yourself "How did those Commies manage that if their ammo sucked?"

The 45mm ATG was (say) 100-200% more common than the 57mm. That is what they had. And when did the 57mm ATG actually go head to head against a Tiger ? Sure as hell a lot less frequently than a 45mm ATG or a 76,2mm field gun.

Actually, the 45mm gun was probably about 10 times more common than the 57mm. But the thing to remember is that the 76mm almost as common (remember, it wasn't just for AT, they equipped the light artillery battalions with ZiS-3 as well, that thing I think probably the most-produced gun of the war) - and ZiS-3 was expected to defeat everything but high density attacks by Panthers and Tigers; and those were awfully rare. Remember, the Soviets considered ZiS-3 could achieve a maybe kill against a Tiger side at about 400 meters, and a sure kill at about 200 meters - and this in 1942/43. So dealing with a Tiger in real life was pretty far from CMBB.

The game's rarity factors are nice as far as they go, but as you can see with the 85mm they probably don't go far enough when it comes to special equipment, usually in independant battalions, the Front or Stavka itself would push down to the Army commander. My impression of CMBB is that the rarity compares basically what was in a Soviet Army vs. a German Korps; and without taking into account that the Soviet army would by doctrine have lots of stuff attached to it from higher, or have deployed in its sector; that had no real analogue on the German side. Or more simply put, Soviet Fronts had alot more units to throw into the battle than German Armees or even Armeegruppen.

However, as noted in innumerable threads on this subject over the years, the real problem with CMBB - which is still a great game - is that it pretty much systematically lowballs the performance of Soviet AT weapons, as compared to historical performance. The worst victim is the Soviet 76mm gun, which historically was good enough that the Germans used thousands of them in the Wehrmacht; and that the Soviets figured didn't need much changing as a weapon throughout the entire war, and which the Soviets figure didn't much need hopped up AT ammunition until mid '43.

There are similar problems in the game with ISU-2, whose crews considered proof against non-Panther 75mm at all but the closest ranges, but which will routinely get killed by L48 75mm in the game. Part of the cause is the way the game deals with turret hits, part of it is a tendency to consider Soviet steel crappy when the record seems to show that plenty of times it was not, part of it is the game's tendency to simulate visibility a good deal better than on most battlefields, and part of it is the game's algorithm that makes the crew of most Stalin's refuse, at times, even flank shots against the better German tanks. Kind of shameful when you remember how scary and tough the tank was to come up against in real life.

Still, one of the things I have found over the years is that the smaller the battle, the more pronounced the ueber-German advantage is. I find that if you get 5 or more 76mm firing at a German panzer, even a kitty, you're going to do something, something bad is going to happen to the panzer. I'm not sure how the logic works but the game is extremely good at simulating the effect of hail fire on a target - if there are a bunch of shells hitting even if they're not doing damage they throw accuracy off and buy your guys more time to get a damaging hit, or spook the thing into turning its flank, or just get the panzer to point its turret at one of your shooters on one end of your firing arc, and so exposing a turret side to another one of your shooters.

Which actually isn't so far from the Soviet experience. You pour enough fire on German tanks, they'll break. Lots of scenarios don't give the Soviets near the firepower or combat skill they had in the real deal; but that isn't BFI's fault.

[Stalins Organ]

Too bad the 76,2mm gun/ammo performance is being debated.

You must have missed this bit:

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.

With the plates bolted together there is no one caliber gap but beefed up armour is better than not beefed up armour.

no-one is arguing otherwise, but there were some technical aspects of the post I replied to that I thought needed correcting.

[malfuriouspete]

first off.. thanks to everyone who posted, lots of good information from both sides of the argument.

and secondly, my apologies for opening up this can of worms again... I didn't realize the passion it would create, lives it would destroy or games it would ruin!!

[Tero]

By Bigduke6

This I believe is because 85mm AAA battalions were a Front and even a Stavka asset. Therefore, a reasonable explaination for why 85mm towed gun was rare in a direct-fire anti-tank role, was because the Soviets kept the weapons well behind the lines unless there was a really critical reason in favor - a Citadel and the massive German technical advantage in armor in June '43 and Zhukov's direct participation in the planning process, are pretty durn good reasons.

Exactly why I can not see why on Earth the rarity value of the 85mm AA gun should be tweaked down. Just because it was used in Kursk (and other undiclosed special occasions) does not mean it was used from 1941 to 1945 JUST LIKE the Germans used their 88's.

Another point to keep in mind in why the 85mm doesn't show up frequently in the DF role in historical accounts is, the 76mm was considered by the Soviets capable of stopping pretty much all German armor. True as far as the Soviets were concerned say in mid '43 you had to let a StuG get in close, or hit a Panther from the side, or a Tiger close from the side, but the battlefield is big and ZiS-3 is incredibly common. So why bring up the 85mm?

Exactly.

There is in the web copies of actual Red Army training materials showing AP ammo was expected to destroy German panzers at normal combat ranges - an impossible expectation if the ammo sucks as bad as it is supposed to per CMBB.

Cue the story about the Finnish infantry with crowbars and logs.

But a simpler, "reality check" way to judge Soviet AP ammo quality is to look at the results of the Kursk and Orel battles, count the smashed panzers, and then ask yourself "How did those Commies manage that if their ammo sucked?"

Before we ask that you should ask what the "normal combat ranges" were in Kursk and Orel.

Actually, the 45mm gun was probably about 10 times more common than the 57mm.

All the way from 1941 (and before) to 1945 ?

But the thing to remember is that the 76mm almost as common (remember, it wasn't just for AT, they equipped the light artillery battalions with ZiS-3 as well, that thing I think probably the most-produced gun of the war) - and ZiS-3 was expected to defeat everything but high density attacks by Panthers and Tigers; and those were awfully rare. Remember, the Soviets considered ZiS-3 could achieve a maybe kill against a Tiger side at about 400 meters, and a sure kill at about 200 meters - and this in 1942/43. So dealing with a Tiger in real life was pretty far from CMBB.

One of my pet peeves is how easy the guns get killed in CMBB.

The game's rarity factors are nice as far as they go, but as you can see with the 85mm they probably don't go far enough when it comes to special equipment, usually in independant battalions, the Front or Stavka itself would push down to the Army commander. My impression of CMBB is that the rarity compares basically what was in a Soviet Army vs. a German Korps; and without taking into account that the Soviet army would by doctrine have lots of stuff attached to it from higher, or have deployed in its sector; that had no real analogue on the German side. Or more simply put, Soviet Fronts had alot more units to throw into the battle than German Armees or even Armeegruppen.

Very true. But on the flip side the Germans had more freedom to field their assets once they had gotten them. The Red Army commander could (and would) have the special assets pulled in the middle of combat leaving him with only the vanilla units under his command to do the job.

However, as noted in innumerable threads on this subject over the years, the real problem with CMBB - which is still a great game - is that it pretty much systematically lowballs the performance of Soviet AT weapons, as compared to historical performance. The worst victim is the Soviet 76mm gun, which historically was good enough that the Germans used thousands of them in the Wehrmacht; and that the Soviets figured didn't need much changing as a weapon throughout the entire war, and which the Soviets figure didn't much need hopped up AT ammunition until mid '43.

IMO that has something to do with the heritage of the game. As it was based on CMBO the basic models were used. AFAIK in the case of the 57mm gun the Ami 57mm/British 6prd gun model was used as a base.

There are similar problems in the game with ISU-2, whose crews considered proof against non-Panther 75mm at all but the closest ranges, but which will routinely get killed by L48 75mm in the game.

The Finnish army armour did not have 75L70, only 75/48 either on StuG or PAK40 format and they actually did kill IS-2's with them.

Part of the cause is the way the game deals with turret hits, part of it is a tendency to consider Soviet steel crappy when the record seems to show that plenty of times it was not, part of it is the game's tendency to simulate visibility a good deal better than on most battlefields, and part of it is the game's algorithm that makes the crew of most Stalin's refuse, at times, even flank shots against the better German tanks. Kind of shameful when you remember how scary and tough the tank was to come up against in real life.

Still, one of the things I have found over the years is that the smaller the battle, the more pronounced the ueber-German advantage is. I find that if you get 5 or more 76mm firing at a German panzer, even a kitty, you're going to do something, something bad is going to happen to the panzer. I'm not sure how the logic works but the game is extremely good at simulating the effect of hail fire on a target - if there are a bunch of shells hitting even if they're not doing damage they throw accuracy off and buy your guys more time to get a damaging hit, or spook the thing into turning its flank, or just get the panzer to point its turret at one of your shooters on one end of your firing arc, and so exposing a turret side to another one of your shooters.

Which actually isn't so far from the Soviet experience. You pour enough fire on German tanks, they'll break. Lots of scenarios don't give the Soviets near the firepower or combat skill they had in the real deal; but that isn't BFI's fault.

This begs the logical guestion: how would you need IRL hail fire from top performing guns when one gun would take the target out with a single shot ?

[Stalins Organ]

Production of 45mm & 57mm AT guns 1939-1945:

...................1939..1940...1941..1942...1943...1944...1945....total.....in svc 22 June 1941

45mm M1937 4536 ..2480 ..1329 20129 17225.. .200 .....0 .....45899 ..14100

45mm M1942....0 ......0 .......0 ......0 ....4151 ..4628 ...2064 ..10843

57mm ............0 .......0 .....371 ....0 ....1850 ..2525 ...5265 ..10011

From RKKA site

The russian 76 used by the Germans is the L51 pre-war M1936, and not the shorter M1939 and M1943's which made up the bulk of the Russian artillery park - the M1936 ceased being produced in 1939 because it was too expensive (that bit's for whoever Tero was quoting...)

[Tero]

By Stalin's Organist

Production of 45mm & 57mm AT guns 1939-1945:

...................1939..1940...1941..1942...1943...1944...1945....total.....in svc 22 June 1941

45mm M1937 4536 ..2480 ..1329 20129 17225.. .200 .....0 .....45899 ..14100

45mm M1942....0 ......0 .......0 ......0 ....4151 ..4628 ...2064 ..10843

57mm ............0 .......0 .....371 ....0 ....1850 ..2525 ...5265 ..10011

From RKKA site

With the hostilities ceasing in May the 57mm production (which would not reach troops in time to be used) for 1945 is, say, 2 500 and 45/M42 1 000 pieces. That leaves overall ~7 500 57mm ATG's available as opposed to 79 000 45mm ATG's. From 1941 to January 1st 1944 the number of 45mm ATG's is ~60 000 vs ~2 100 57mm ATG's. That is, what, ~290% more 45mm than 57mm ATG's over that entire period.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Just because it was used in Kursk (and other undiclosed special occasions) does not mean it was used from 1941 to 1945 JUST LIKE the Germans used their 88's.

Actually it was used from June 1941 in the AT role:

Colossus series - David Glantz:

June 1941 AT Regts each 5 battalions: 1st-2nd battalions 76mm, 3rd 107mm, 4th-5th 85mm AA guns used in the AT role.

August 1941 more 85mm Regt formed as 76mm guns in short supply.

And in Jan 1942 as detailed above, they formed more.

And in April 1943 as detailed above they formed more and attached them to Tank and Mech Corps.

Glantz notes particular 85mm AT ammo effectiveness problems in 1941 but not in 1943.

So there we have it, a rare but used AT weapon of the RKKA from 1941-1943. Not used exactly like the Germans. But then nobody did anything exactly like the Germans except the Germans.

[Bigduke6]

Before we ask that you should ask what the "normal combat ranges" were in Kursk and Orel.

No need to ask, it is very clear from the record that the Soviets at that time and place considered 700 - 800 meters the outside edge of the AT engagement range, 400 - 500 meters the generic engagement range, and 200 or even less as the die-in-place engagement range. As a general rule, and speaking about direct fire AT, holding fire to a decisive engagement range was considered far better then opening up early and trying to win an attrition contest.

Which reminds me of another point, at Orel and Kursk even more Red doctrine made the AT battle a combined arms task: artillery was involved until the panzers got to about 200 meters and sometimes less, at which point infantry was expected to attack panzer survivors with infantry weapons. A key step in the process of blunting a panzer attack was considered stripping off the German infantry and light armored vehicles; the idea was to get the panzers all by themselves and buttoned up, as sooner or later tanks in that situation will expose a flank.

CMBB perhaps unsurprisingly makes this process and the vulnerability of tanks on their own somewhat difficult to replicate due to borg spotting, an inherent morale/capacity hit taken by all prior-1944 Soviet infantry, programming making Soviet infantry use and expend all their useless Molotov cocktails against panzers before shifting to a more effective close attack, the inherent weakness of Molotov cocktacks, and of course the OB decision not to Red infantry squads to carry AT explosives improvised or factory-manufactured. So not only is the basic Red AT gun of the war - the 76mm - worse performing than it was by any reasonable historical standard; the Red infantry is pretty much emasculated of any inherent ability to harm German panzers. This probably was - in my personal opinion of course - a good game design decision for the 1941 period and possibly the 1942, but it is untenable for 1943 and somewhere between funny and ridiculous for 1944 and 1945.

But this really is water under the bridge, CMBB isn't going to change and sooner or later there will be an East Front WW2 CMII module. I strongly suspect the 76mm and Red infantry are going to be a good deal more capable than they are in CMBB - which is for all my complaining still probably my favorite wargame of all time.

[Der Alte Fritz]

With the hostilities ceasing in May the 57mm production (which would not reach troops in time to be used) for 1945 is, say, 2 500 and 45/M42 1 000 pieces. That leaves overall ~7 500 57mm ATG's available as opposed to 79 000 45mm ATG's. From 1941 to January 1st 1944 the number of 45mm ATG's is ~60 000 vs ~2 100 57mm ATG's. That is, what, ~290% more 45mm than 57mm ATG's over that entire period.

Not sure that this calculation is correct.Why exclude 1944 production because the war ended in 1945? And the total production of 45mm is 56,742 not 79,000.

So take production from 1941 up to and including 1944.

45mm total 57,742

57mm total 4,746

which equates to 57mm numbers being 7.6% of the total number of AT guns (45+57mm). So for every 13 guns you meet, one would be a 57mm. Rarity June 1944 65% for 57mm AT guns.

Let us put this in perspective:

Tiger I production entire war: 1354

King Tiger: 489

JadgTiger: 77

Total 1920.

German tank production for the period 1941-1944 inclusive 74,275 tanks, assault guns, tank destroyers etc. That gives an advantage to the Cats of around 10,000 armoured vehicles production during 1945.

So Cat production was around 2.6% or 1 in every 40 vehicles.

A bit unrealistic. So lets us look at tanks alone.

Tiger and King Tiger: 1,843 total production.

German tank production: (gun armed tanks so excludes command tanks, flamethrowers, etc) 1941-1944 inclusive.

That gives 8.7% as the likelyhood of meeting a Cat of 1 in 12.

Rarity of Tiger June 1944 = 5%.

Depends on your point of reference, just like Einstein said.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Oophs missed off the German tank production figure of 21,028 taks between 1941 and 1944 inc.

[dieseltaylor]

i am somewhat surprised that, at this stage, nobody has chimed in with the number of 45mmATG's lost or destroyed in the early years. Purely taking production figures overall is OK but hardly as accurate as the actual manifest.

I do have, and have had for some time, a niggling doubt on playing with standard rarity. I can subscribe to variable rarity as it adds greatly to the fog of war.

The concept that rarity is true across all of the Russian fronts in the same month is self evidently bogus. Placing a Tiger heavy division on a particular front alters the likelihood of meeting one there and lessens it elsewhere so variable rarity works in terms of logic.

I also have a suspicion that Tigers were more likely to be active however that is possibly untrue and a reflection on the amount of attention they get. However by comparing Battalion accounts it should be possible to compare vanilla unit activity levels with ubers.

To be fair for all I know BF have done a greater amount of work on rarity than I know. But then possibly not ...!