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

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Am glad you issued the correction, and no, I didn't think the number on the spacing was 6" yet knew there was space rather than a direct plate to plate bolting. Seen way too many late model Panzer III pics to buy that. Oh, and I categorically reject the bias assertion you immediately went to. If you do even rudimentary research, you'll find I've repeatedly asked BFC to fix glaring deficiencies in Russian terminal effectiveness modeling, most recently in the CMMC Forum, and I've specifically invoked your research.

Turning now to U.S. Test No. 1, which I thought would've gotten your grog self all excited, it seems that the key element is premature initiation on the 20mm of stood off RHA. Thus, if relatively soft RHA will do this to APHE fuzes, it stands to reason the same would hold true for face hardened standoff plate. If the APHE bursts on said plate, I maintain the odds of penetration are close to zero, because the projectile will disintegrate as a coherent KE penetrator before it ever encounters the principal tank armor. That is a considerably different issue than denosing 2pr projectiles, which is what Mark III Special add-on armor did, but once blunted, the 2 pr projectiles were still solid penetrators, rather than a collection of exploding fragments.

Thus, I think that this test is a grog breakthrough in understanding a variety of weapon/target interaction so appalling it was never disseminated, though I've read and am familiar with the later tests Nos. 2 and 3, especially 3, which are also at the link.

dieseltaylor,

Thanks! Totally blew me away!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

JK - (1) 30+50 isn't spaced, and (2) vs. 20+50 76mm APCR with no fuze does what? (Which the Russians had mid 43, but BB only gives them in 44).

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

While we may be having the discussion here, I was highlighting the problem in the macro sense, especially since parts of the link I gave also pertain to other matters which, IMO, should be factored into the the new CMx2 WW II games.

The Mark III Special does fall under the spaced armor rubric of Test No. 1, but I'm not sure what effect that same armor array would have on 76.2mm Arrowhead shot. Offhand, I'd say there's a real possibility that the shot could be thrown out of plane as it goes through, greatly reducing penetration and maybe, breaking the penetrator up, since it's immensely strong in compression but much less so in shear.

I do wish you'd stop acting like I'm trying to shaft the Russians. I gave one example earlier of my not doing so, but if you do some checking, you'll find I also howled about perceived Katyusha ineffectiveness and the lack of Russian heavy artillery (122,152,203mm) for street fighting. Indeed, I was pushing for all sorts of Russian weapons and capabilities long before CMBB ever saw daylight, to include DF capability for the Katyusha.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

BD6

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.

CMBB is flawed with the 76mm problem, the fortification problem, cowering, sub-morale, and bogging [perhaps].

Since CMAK I play CMBB very little. A ratio of about 110 to 19 since June 2004.

When playing CMBB I consistently preferred played on the largest maps - with 2000 - 3000 point games. My reasoning for playing large CMBB was because I knew hail fire worked and that the biggest maps means movement is possible rather than always staring at the front end of German tanks.

I am against prescribing what your opponent can and cannot buy so contented myself with having casualties on and variable rarity which meant German, or even Russian cherry-picking was made hazardous.

I had many many fun games on that basis but it was never totally satisfying given the cowering behaviour. And avoiding early war morale hits. ...etc.

[Kineas]

I had many many fun games on that basis but it was never totally satisfying given the cowering behaviour.

may I ask what is that cowering behavior?

[dieseltaylor]

Cowering is the very upsetting behaviour where decent Russian tanks see a German tank glancing at them and rather than fire to destroy it they back away in case it decides to turn its turret and glare at them : )

Intensely irritating and one has the feeling it was coded in generally and not changed when the more heavily gunned and armoured Russian tanks arrived. What with this and substandard penetration figures it does make it less satisfying than it ought to be.

CMAK is a big improvement with less bogging, less cowering and generally more satisfying to play.

[dieseltaylor]

Searching for cowering brings many hits on the CMBB forum. This from BD6 I thought quite telling as to the emasculation of of Russian tanks:

On the Russian side of Russian Battlefield there is an interview with a guy named Reznikov.

Here's the linkie:

http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/reznikov/reznikov_r.htm

This is my rendition of the interesting bits, for those of you whose computers can't read Russian:

1. 122mm will kill any German tank, including Tigers, at normal combat ranges. He does not make a distinction between Tiger I and Tiger II.

"We could kill Tigers at 1200-1400 meters. The Germans, in order to destroy us, had to get to 500 meters or less."

2. German panzers avoided contact against Stalin II. That's specific, and my memory is extremely clear on that one. If the Stalins advanced, he said, the German panzers invariably retreated.

I'm not saying I think this bit is absolutely true or not, but I am willing to note that the opinion "our tanks are so studly the other side always retreats" seems not to have been limited to German tankers.

3. The key to killing enemy tanks was ambushing the other guy.

4. The big danger to Stalin II was built-up areas and Panzerfaust-armed infantry.

6. The front Stalin II was proof against all German AP munitions 88mm included unless the range was under 500 meters, and to smaller caliber stuff less than that. He talks about how the thing to do with the Stalin was to shoot it out with the enemy at the longer ranges, as the Germans could do very little to hurt the Stalin.

7. Stalin had enough ammunition to fight through a standard engagement. There was little need for repeat shots "for luck": If the 122mm hit something, almost always that something was toast.

8. The basic load shells aboard a Stalin was 28 AP rounds. The crews also loaded an additional one dozen HE shells, making total shells carried into battle 40.

(Compare that with the StalinII in CM. 20 or so rounds total, and the greater part is HE. It's a breeze to run a CM Stalin out of AP. RL Stalins were a bit better munitioned, apparently.)

8. Stalin II typically fired two rounds a minute. Germans fired faster.

Now let's all remember that Stalin II in CMBB is vulnerable to 88mm out to 2000 meters, and to vanilla 75mm at 1000 meters. A bit of a difference from what the guy inside the Stalin recalled, nes pas?

This guy was in one of the very first Stalin regiments raised and fought with that unit to the end of the war. 51st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment of 3rd Guards Tank Army. If he is a liar then he is a different kind of liar than the people who write about Wittman: he tells the interviewer Stalins under his command throughout the war destroyed seven German tanks, and a single SP gun. The interview took place after the Soviet Union broke up, so it's not so easy to label the account Soviet propaganda.

The account is about as "from the tip of the spear" as you can get. So the question is, do we believe him?

Me, I don't want to sell the account as the gospel truth. But it to me the account at minimum makes clear reading only the German side of East Front warfare will weight your opinions. It is impossible to read the account and not wonder "Hey, maybe these Soviets were a bit more competent than the standard ueber-panzer histories (Jentz, von Mellenthin)

In my opinion, Soviet tanks in CM all suffer because they are underrated viz. German tanks, and the biggest sufferer is the Stalin.

I consider myself fairly well-read in the Soviet historical literature, meaning in the Russian language. In close to twenty years of reading, I have never come across an account of Stalin tank crews cowering at the sight of Tigers or Panthers. In my opinion, Soviet armor was artificially (although certainly not vindictively) weakened, to a greater or lesse extent, by the CMBB designers.

The worst victim IMO by far is the Stalin II tank. When a vanilla 75mm can KO a Stalin II at a kilometer, that is nothing less than emasculation.

The German accounts of fighting Tigers fighting Stalins, and of the Stalins supposedly obliging Tiger crews to learn small armor tactics again, go straight back to von Mellenthin's highly questionable account of the Targul Fumos battles, Romania May 1944. The text is - to me anyway - suspisciously close to Jentz: "The appearance of Stalins suprised us but with the application of proper tactics Stalins turned out not to be a problem, and those Ruskies really didn't want to duke it out with our Tigers if we pushed the issue."

It is all very close to a crock. You have these German authors spouting stories almost identical with NATO "fight outnumbered and win" doctrine, and their stories are directly contradicted by every Soviet source possible: the official histories, the anecdotatal reports, the secret Red Army internal studies, the propaganda, the combat participants. Every single one.

[JasonC]

It is annoying when they cower, but it happens mostly on hunt. It was worse before some patches. As for IS modeling, the late 44 model is the only one worth taking --- it appears in June of 1944. That one will pretty reliably stand up to short 75mm fire at 700 meters or farther, though the random variation on the turret is still too extreme. At 400-500 yards, even a 75L48 routinely penetrates the turret. The hull is strong though. Yes this is undermodeling.

So is the ammo, basically they show only the ready rack amount.

These interact with the low ROF is an unfortunate way - you can't stand off at 1.5 km and destroy everything from there, even though the gun is strong enough, because you simply won't get the hits. Homing helps if the target obliges by standing stock still. But you will still take 20-30 incoming before you hit something, risk track or gun hits etc.

Still, the late 44 IS-2 is a strong tank, the strongest in the Allied arsenal. Still undermodeled? Definitely. I just did an outing of 4 of those vs. 5 Panzer IV H. The IS-2s won, but lost 2 of the tanks to turret penetrations.

As for the T-34/76 vs. Pz III with 70mm front issue, I just tried that out with APCR for the Russians. Takes too long but they do reliably win. The Germans don't get dangerous until about 400 meters, and with APCR one can kill them oneself at more like 600-700. Still a lot of bounces though. APCR supplies are low by a factor of 2 and they often refuse to use it. But in a 6 T-34 vs 5 Pz III M fight, I killed all 5 without loss.

While neither is perfect, these aren't unplayable, and don't require any changes in player cherry picking or tank use restrictions. The Russians can take care of themselves fighting 20+50 Panzer IIIs, or using the later IS-2s against ordinary German armor. Sure it is annoying they have to wait for June 1944 before they get an IS-2 that fights like an IS-2, but they do get them.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why is that annoying? Tests conducted in March of 1944 showed the IS2 turret was vulnerable to a Zis-3 at 500-600 m from all sides. The new turret design and the new hull started manufacture in May 1944, and for a while tanks were produced with both new and old hulls. In addition, in summer of 1944 Germans were no longer able to use manganese in the armor of the Panther, making it brittle, at which point the AP perfomance of the IS2 improved dramatically. http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/32/50/lang,en/

[JasonC]

It is annoying that 75L48 goes in even after the new armor appears, and that the turret is paper mache before then, when the reality was merely that penetration was possible for favorable angles of the hit. In other words, the post new armor behavior is about right for the pre, etc.

[Wrath of Dagon]

What new armor are you referring to? That article only mentions the improved gun mantle for the turret, not the entire turret armor.

Edit: Correction, it does mention a change in armor tempering, but only talking about the hull. Perhaps he left out the part about the turret.

[Jagdzilla]

There is so much wrong with this thread, I dont know where to start. Even the most basic facts are being bent by the Russian side.

Firstly, the T-34/76 cannot penetrate the long barrel stug, or the glacis of the Panzer IV. Why? Because even the long barrel F-34 has half the velocity of a 17 pounder, 30% less than a US 76mm, and the same as a US 75mm. Its quate a stretch to say the F-34 can penetrate a tank which gives problems for obviously superior weapons. Dont even bot trying to tell me a gun which fired a projectile at 650m/s is comparable with a gun of 1000m/s. That completely unbelievable.

So where do these stories of the 76mm killing everything head on come from? From before the Stug and IV had 80mm of armor. It was nearly a year before they got long barrels and that extra 30mm of armor. During that time, the F-34 and 75mm were quite capable of killing them out to 800m.

But its only 30mm extra, thats not so much, is it? There is quite a difference between 50 and 80mm, seeing as 50mm is about 25% less than the penetration of the F-34 at 500m, while 80mm is more than 30% more than the penetration at 500m, and indeed more than at point blank range.

When it comes to the T-34 being penetrated, here is the thing, nobody has ever been able to prove the T-34 and IS-2 were ever produced with armor less brittle than 350BHN. The Sherman used about 250BHN armor, while the German tanks about 280. Because of that, the T-34 could be penetrated by the 50mm of the Panzer III at over 500m, while the Sherman was completely immune to it over 250m.

Now why is the hardness of armor so important? Wouldnt harder be better? Not at all. Harder is more brittle, and so it breaks easily. In fact, 350BHN armor is half as effective as 250BHN armor, and 280BHN is actually 85% stronger than 350BHN.

Because of the hardness, Russian armor was extremely vulnerable. Even the Glacis of the IS2 has had spall due to the 50mm. There are countless claims of 75mm L/48 shells penetrating IS-2. There are also hundred of T-34 destroyed by Panzer III. In fact, the PIII was used until 1943, when it was pulled back and re-issued as a command vehicle.

You guys know Whittman? The Tiger ace? Well he started in the PIII, racked up dozens of T-34 kills, and even after he was transfered to a Tiger regiment, they kept him in the command PIII because he was the best person at using it. He didnt get his Tiger until months later.

When it comes to the IS-2 and SU-122 cannon, neither were intended as tank killers. In fact, the 122mm was issued with only one shell type, HE. There was no AP, and anybody who says otherwise is making it up. They produced a HEAT shell which was very ineffective, and it barely saw service. The 122mm could not penetrate a Tiger or KT frontally at any range. In fact, a SU-122 hit a Tiger on the side at 50mm and the shell did not penetrate. Why? Because its HE, its got a contact fuse. Unless the fuse is removed, the shell has nearly no value as a tank killer.

But doesnt the 122mm have this huge HE charge that can blow turrets off? Not even close. It has 3kg of HE, which is a joke. Thats less than the Panzerfaust. Thats what the completely ineffective RPG-40 had.

Comparing the 122, and even the 152, to other weapons really highlights the ineffectiveness of the weapons. The nebelwerfer has 90 and 110lbs of HE in it, the 60lb rocket is obvious, so is the 30lb, and those were nearly completely useless against tanks. In fact, even the NW could not destroy the Tiger I with the thinner top armor when Otto Carius was attacked by his own side.

If you want me to believe a HE shell with 3kg of explosives is going to kill the best tanks of the war, its not happening.

If the Su-122 was even supposed to be tank killer, then why was it issued to support regiments alongside the Su-76. Because it was for support, and thats what it excelled at. Just because it wasnt a great tank killer, doesnt mean it wasnt good at what it was meant for.

The only real Russian tank killers were the 85mm and 100mm. The 85 was equivalent to the German 75mm L/48, and the US 76mm. If you read German accounts the performance of the two was the same, and its verified by the numbers.

There is one massive problem with both the 76 and 85, the speed of the shells causes a very large "shatter gap", where between 200 and 1100m, the shells will shatter on contact with the front armor of the Tiger. Solution? Dont attack a Tiger head on. They didnt have any real issue with the IV or Stug, the shatter gap was extremely small, so much as to be ignored.

All high velocity tank guns have this issue, its just far less pronounced for the Germans, because their guns were far more powerful compared to the armor they face.

Now if you Ruskie fans really dont believe me about the quality of Russian armor, lets make some comparisons. Try and follow, because it cant get any clearer.

The 17 pounder and 75mm L/70 have nearly the same penetration, about 125mm@500m@30. The 17 pounder will easily punch holes in the late war Panther which was produced with 85mm 300BHN armor. The IS-2 has 100mm of 350-400BHN armor. Its quite safe to say they are comparable.

So if the 17 pounder can penetrate the Panther, its quite safe to say the 75mm L/70 will do the same to the IS-2 at the same range.

What am I getting at? Well, if you dont think the 88mm can penetrate the IS-2, then perhaps you should consider that the 88mm L/56 in the Tiger I will penetrate more the 30% more armor than the 75mm L/70 at beyond 500m. Its quite safe to say the 88 could make some problems for the IS-2. The IS-2 would need to have 115mm of armor to be able to take a hit from the 88mm at the same range a Panther can take a hit from the 17 pounder, and thats assuming the IS-2 has the fortune of having the same armor quality as the poorly made Panther armor. Comparing the IS-2 to a high quality Panther would blow it out of the water.

Then there is the sights. Do you guys know what a stadia sight is? Thats what the Russians had, and they are only really accurate under 800m. There Germans on the other hand had some of the best coincidence rangefinders ever made. Whats the big deal? Well, even the best gunner can barely get within 200m of a target when using a stadia sight, while anybody can get within 50m on the first shot when using a proper coincidence rangefinder.

The Russians equiped post war tanks with a handheld coincidence rangefinder, but at the length of the rangefinder is one of its most important features, the Russian ones are much of a joke. They are no more accurate than Stadia. In fact, they never found a way to fix the problem until they started using laser rangefinders in the late part of the last century.

Until you actually take a look though the sights of a T-34 will you realize exactly how hard it is to use. Its this yellow tinted piece of garbage, while the Germans have these extremely nice Zeiss optics. Its night and day, no comparison at all. People say the Coincidence rangefinders take to much time, but people who say that have no merit. Anybody who knows about stadia knows you have to take your sight off the target to compare it to a scale, and if the target is in camo or not the same height as the tank you are calibrated to fight, then you are screwed. Thats why no nation but the Russians use them. Its the worse possible option.

The reasons just keep going on and on and on.

You cant just tell me a Russian conscript said something, as people say a lot of things. Do you believe what you hear from our own soldiers down at the bar? Im sure you believe those guys who run around claiming to be SEALs, right? Then why would you believe someone who has no scientific support in any fashion at all? In fact, is counteracted by every piece of science I can find.

You cant just say you heard some story, because the other side has people who say just to opposite. You have to have science on your side, and thats all that matters in an argument like this.

[dieseltaylor]

There is so much wrong with this thread, I dont know where to start. Even the most basic facts are being bent by the Russian side.

Firstly, the T-34/76 cannot penetrate the long barrel stug, or the glacis of the Panzer IV. Why? Because even the long barrel F-34 has half the velocity of a 17 pounder, 30% less than a US 76mm, and the same as a US 75mm. Its quate a stretch to say the F-34 can penetrate a tank which gives problems for obviously superior weapons. Dont even bot trying to tell me a gun which fired a projectile at 650m/s is comparable with a gun of 1000m/s. That completely unbelievable.

So where do these stories of the 76mm killing everything head on come from? From before the Stug and IV had 80mm of armor. It was nearly a year before they got long barrels and that extra 30mm of armor. During that time, the F-34 and 75mm were quite capable of killing them out to 800m.

But its only 30mm extra, thats not so much, is it? There is quite a difference between 50 and 80mm, seeing as 50mm is about 25% less than the penetration of the F-34 at 500m, while 80mm is more than 30% more than the penetration at 500m, and indeed more than at point blank range.

When it comes to the T-34 being penetrated, here is the thing, nobody has ever been able to prove the T-34 and IS-2 were ever produced with armor less brittle than 350BHN. The Sherman used about 250BHN armor, while the German tanks about 280. Because of that, the T-34 could be penetrated by the 50mm of the Panzer III at over 500m, while the Sherman was completely immune to it over 250m.

Now why is the hardness of armor so important? Wouldnt harder be better? Not at all. Harder is more brittle, and so it breaks easily. In fact, 350BHN armor is half as effective as 250BHN armor, and 280BHN is actually 85% stronger than 350BHN.

Because of the hardness, Russian armor was extremely vulnerable. Even the Glacis of the IS2 has had spall due to the 50mm. There are countless claims of 75mm L/48 shells penetrating IS-2. There are also hundred of T-34 destroyed by Panzer III. In fact, the PIII was used until 1943, when it was pulled back and re-issued as a command vehicle.

You guys know Whittman? The Tiger ace? Well he started in the PIII, racked up dozens of T-34 kills, and even after he was transfered to a Tiger regiment, they kept him in the command PIII because he was the best person at using it. He didnt get his Tiger until months later.

When it comes to the IS-2 and SU-122 cannon, neither were intended as tank killers. In fact, the 122mm was issued with only one shell type, HE. There was no AP, and anybody who says otherwise is making it up. They produced a HEAT shell which was very ineffective, and it barely saw service.

The 122mm could not penetrate a Tiger or KT frontally at any range. In fact, a SU-122 hit a Tiger on the side at 50mm and the shell did not penetrate. Why? Because its HE, its got a contact fuse. Unless the fuse is removed, the shell has nearly no value as a tank killer.

But doesnt the 122mm have this huge HE charge that can blow turrets off? Not even close. It has 3kg of HE, which is a joke. Thats less than the Panzerfaust. Thats what the completely ineffective RPG-40 had.

Comparing the 122, and even the 152, to other weapons really highlights the ineffectiveness of the weapons. The nebelwerfer has 90 and 110lbs of HE in it, the 60lb rocket is obvious, so is the 30lb, and those were nearly completely useless against tanks. In fact, even the NW could not destroy the Tiger I with the thinner top armor when Otto Carius was attacked by his own side.

If you want me to believe a HE shell with 3kg of explosives is going to kill the best tanks of the war, its not happening.

If the Su-122 was even supposed to be tank killer, then why was it issued to support regiments alongside the Su-76. Because it was for support, and thats what it excelled at. Just because it wasnt a great tank killer, doesnt mean it wasnt good at what it was meant for.

The only real Russian tank killers were the 85mm and 100mm. The 85 was equivalent to the German 75mm L/48, and the US 76mm. If you read German accounts the performance of the two was the same, and its verified by the numbers.

There is one massive problem with both the 76 and 85, the speed of the shells causes a very large "shatter gap", where between 200 and 1100m, the shells will shatter on contact with the front armor of the Tiger. Solution? Dont attack a Tiger head on. They didnt have any real issue with the IV or Stug, the shatter gap was extremely small, so much as to be ignored.

All high velocity tank guns have this issue, its just far less pronounced for the Germans, because their guns were far more powerful compared to the armor they face.

Now if you Ruskie fans really dont believe me about the quality of Russian armor, lets make some comparisons. Try and follow, because it cant get any clearer.

The 17 pounder and 75mm L/70 have nearly the same penetration, about 125mm@500m@30. The 17 pounder will easily punch holes in the late war Panther which was produced with 85mm 300BHN armor. The IS-2 has 100mm of 350-400BHN armor. Its quite safe to say they are comparable.

So if the 17 pounder can penetrate the Panther, its quite safe to say the 75mm L/70 will do the same to the IS-2 at the same range.

What am I getting at? Well, if you dont think the 88mm can penetrate the IS-2, then perhaps you should consider that the 88mm L/56 in the Tiger I will penetrate more the 30% more armor than the 75mm L/70 at beyond 500m. Its quite safe to say the 88 could make some problems for the IS-2. The IS-2 would need to have 115mm of armor to be able to take a hit from the 88mm at the same range a Panther can take a hit from the 17 pounder, and thats assuming the IS-2 has the fortune of having the same armor quality as the poorly made Panther armor. Comparing the IS-2 to a high quality Panther would blow it out of the water.

Then there is the sights. Do you guys know what a stadia sight is? Thats what the Russians had, and they are only really accurate under 800m. There Germans on the other hand had some of the best coincidence rangefinders ever made. Whats the big deal? Well, even the best gunner can barely get within 200m of a target when using a stadia sight, while anybody can get within 50m on the first shot when using a proper coincidence rangefinder.

The Russians equiped post war tanks with a handheld coincidence rangefinder, but at the length of the rangefinder is one of its most important features, the Russian ones are much of a joke. They are no more accurate than Stadia. In fact, they never found a way to fix the problem until they started using laser rangefinders in the late part of the last century.

Until you actually take a look though the sights of a T-34 will you realize exactly how hard it is to use. Its this yellow tinted piece of garbage, while the Germans have these extremely nice Zeiss optics. Its night and day, no comparison at all. People say the Coincidence rangefinders take to much time, but people who say that have no merit. Anybody who knows about stadia knows you have to take your sight off the target to compare it to a scale, and if the target is in camo or not the same height as the tank you are calibrated to fight, then you are screwed. Thats why no nation but the Russians use them. Its the worse possible option.

The reasons just keep going on and on and on.

You cant just tell me a Russian conscript said something, as people say a lot of things. Do you believe what you hear from our own soldiers down at the bar? Im sure you believe those guys who run around claiming to be SEALs, right? Then why would you believe someone who has no scientific support in any fashion at all? In fact, is counteracted by every piece of science I can find.

You cant just say you heard some story, because the other side has people who say just to opposite. You have to have science on your side, and thats all that matters in an argument like this.

I have broken this up for clarity but not corrected any typos. There seem to be so many assertions open to debate however the one thing that does strike me as a huge hole is the lack of discussion of the importance of angled armour - and that shedding shots by angles is extremely important.

* Wittman I thought was a STugIII commander not a tank commander in his early career

[Kineas]

I love this thread.

[jtcm2]

Hmm, reinventing the wheel, how fun. The consensus reached on this forum after about 10 years is, I think, that Russian guns and armour and consistently *undermodelled, and the 80 mm front StuG significantly overmodelled-- based on tactical reports and instructions from both sides.

[Vark]

Strange how the Panzerwaffe paid these vehicles more respect than a gamer, eh?

[dieseltaylor]

ISU-122mm tank killer

Mounting a HV tank gun D-25T [L/43]

AP,APCBC/T & HE

into service early 1944

weight of shot 55lbs

*my book claims penetration of 185mm at 1000 metres however the kinetic impact of 55lb of shot travelling at 781m/sec would be something regardless of penetration.

Su-122 support armour

mounting M-38 [L/23] howitzer. HE wight 47.9lb

AP, HEAT, HE

into service 1941

*Armoured Firepower by Peter Gudgin

" Gun sights were an exception to the general rough finish of Soviet tank components and assemblies, and were designed and finished to a high standard" Page 136

Incidentally the types of ballistic caps are important for armour piercing capabilities which our correspondent has no addressed.

[Erwin]

I also thought Wittman started as a Stug CO. Interesting thread...

[jtcm2]

Specifically, I had the impression that he had served in the artillery, because that was what StuGs were classified as ??

-- anyway, two points have been established

-- Wittmann did not serve in a PzIII, so all of our correspondent's points about 50mm etc can be revised

--DT quotes a source showing 1. that the 122mm guns in SU and ISU version had AP versions; and 2. that they achieved considerable penetration at long range. Another of our correspondent's points seems to bite the dust.

Next ?

[George MC]

Wittmann entered the war in 1939 as CO of an 8 wheeled armoured car. In February 1940 he was transferred to an assault gun battery - Stug IIIs (reason I have read is is scant three years experience in a branch of the service which was at least similar to the armoured forces). He was made a battery commander. He was promoted and sent to officer training school in 1942. After this was assigned to the SS Panzer Training and replacement battalion. On 21st December 1942 promoted and joined the SS LSAH Tiger company and commanded the light platoon (equipped with PzIIIs with 50mm guns and additional bolted armour plates on the bow and turret front). Around about March 1943 the Tiger company lost it's PzIIIs and was fully equipped with Tiger Is. Wittman became a Tiger commander in this period.

[Amedeo]

When it comes to the IS-2 and SU-122 cannon, neither were intended as tank killers. In fact, the 122mm was issued with only one shell type, HE. There was no AP, and anybody who says otherwise is making it up. They produced a HEAT shell which was very ineffective, and it barely saw service.

The SU-122 was not intended to be a tank killer. But, as it was already pointed out, the 122mm guns mounted on the ISU-122 and IS-2 were not the same weapon that armed the SU-122. The D-25 gun had excellent anti-tank capabilities and was issued with AP and APBC rounds (namely the BR-417 and the BR-471B).

You cant just tell me a Russian conscript said something, as people say a lot of things. Do you believe what you hear from our own soldiers down at the bar? Im sure you believe those guys who run around claiming to be SEALs, right? Then why would you believe someone who has no scientific support in any fashion at all? In fact, is counteracted by every piece of science I can find.

You cant just say you heard some story, because the other side has people who say just to opposite. You have to have science on your side, and thats all that matters in an argument like this.

OK, you have not to believe a russian conscript remembering war stories without double.checking his facts. Nonetheless there are some German official reports that confirm some parts of the conscript's tale...

For example have a look at this old post:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=260648&postcount=106

Moreover, the Inspector General of the Panzertruppen added the following comments on this report:

[...]In regards to Point 5 and 6 - A time when there are 12.2cm tank guns and 5.7cm antitank guns on the Eastern Front, just like 9.2cm (sic) antitank/antiaircraft guns on the Western Front and in Italy, the Tiger can non longer disregard the tactical principles that apply to the other types of tanks. [...] Statements like "thick fur", "impregnable" and the "security" of crews inside the Tigers, which have become estabilished within other units and also partially within the tank troops, must be wiped out and forgotten. [...]

[jtcm2]

Am I right that very many of Wittmann's Eastern Front armour kills were obtained in his StuG, then Tiger, rather than PzIII ?

[dieseltaylor]

Well apart from two months when he commanded the MkIII platoon all his AFV experience was StugIII

[Bigduke6]

Yeah, probably my favorite thread of all time.

OK, that crack about about the Stalin tank commander Reznikov supposedly not knowing his stuff and being a dumb Russian peasant and all made me hunt down the memoir text again, and lo and behind I find the site now offers an English translation. Progress! Now those of us that didn't spend years and years memorizing the difference between the Russian words "MUka" (Torture) and muKA (Flour) can read cool stuff like this too!

http://www.iremember.ru/tankisti/reznikov-mikhail-grigorevich.html

For the record, Reznikov was a Jew from east Ukraine who worked in mining and engineering before the war. He did his draft service on KV tanks, and when the war started was put back on a KV. In 1943 the Soviets began putting together Stalin Tank regiments, and he was transfered to the then-forming 57th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, which was an element of 3rd Guards Tank Army. He describes his rank as a "starshina", which is a senior sergeant, something like a British colour sergeant. So his recollections are not those of a private, but of a senior NCO.

Also, FWIW, when the war ended 3rd Guards Tank Army was in Prague, and shortly thereafter all major Soviet commands held local victory parades. The vehicle leading the 3rd Guard Tank Army's victory parade through Prague was (according to him) Reznikov's Stalin, and Reznikov was the guy carrying the 3GTA banner.

This was, as students of the Red Army will already know, a pretty special honor; and if you consider that Reznikov was not an ethnic Russian but a Jew serving in a systemically anti-Semitic Red Army, it is even more impressive.

I reread the memoir, and as far as I am concerned I am absolutely convinced it is an actual memoir by an actual Stalin tank commander, who fought all the way from the Dniepr to Prague.

(As an aside, you think about what the hero figures in western armies went through, you know, Easy Company from the 101st for instance; and then compare it what this guy went through, and to me there just is no comparison. But that's just my opinion.)

Anyway, just for fun here is new stuff I learned/noticed on the reread:

ISu-2 companies were 2 x 3 tank platoons plus a company commander tank, 7 vehicles.

T-34 crews sometimes would put buckets on the ends of their cannon, the idea being that makes a T-34 profile appear Stalin-like at distance.

This guy Reznikov not only had seven kills he's sure of, there were 4 or so where it was massed fire and he's not sure whose shell took out the panzer.

Three times this guy wound up in attacks as a foot soldier. Not clear whether that was by accident or what, but that says something about the Red Army if during the course of a war the vehicle commander of a Stalin tank, which is part of the heavy tank regiment of a Guards Tank Army, participates in a foot attack even once.

Stalin crews, well Reznikov's anyway, used a pair of empty shell boxes to carry supplies of "liberated" food. Boxes were tied onto the bow armor.

The commander of Reznikov's regiment, a Colonel Bogunov, was not exactly a from-the-front kind of leader, BUT at the same time Reznikov describes him as a basically good man.

Just for the record Reznikov onfirms that the Sandomirz engagement took place like the histories tell us; Tiger II went into action for the first time in Autumn 1944, and 57 Guards Heavy tank regiment shot hell out of the German attack. One commander in 57 GHTR according to Reznikov nailed 17 German armored vehicles, although I assume they weren't all Tiger II.

But no matter how you cut it, you read things like the Reznikov memoire, and it's a lot harder to believe in what the Panzer Fan Boy league tells us.

[jaeger8888]

How do we Know Reznikov isn't mistaken. Perhaps he was suffering from Tiger Phobia like a lot of tankers in the Western Armies were. Reporting any Tank as a Tiger. A Panzer IV can't hurt a JSII from beyond 500 meters unless it hits the turret. In a court of law all of these so called memoirs and remembrances would be considered heresay. The only proof is the physics. The stats in the game provides all the proof you need. The T-34's 76.2mm regularly penetrates the late mode STG IIIs 80mm armor at 470 meters. I've tested this by creating a game situation. And it reflects the stats listed for the armor and armaments. Claims that the game has all rounds bounce of the 80mm front of a STG III is inaccurate. What is noticeable is the lack of lethality when the 76.2 does penetrate. If all the stats given in the unit listings are inaccurate then the Red Star advocates have a point. The German 75 has 18% more velocity then the Russian 76.2 which should give it greater hitting power. But the armor penetration stats in the game give a greater edge than 18% to the German 75. Someone needs to explain the greater than expected advantage. It would be great if they could gather a team of experts in metallurgy, ballistics etc. and figure out what the real story is.