Russian Tank Tactics Explored

[Heinrich505]

Der Alte Fritz,

I have it, and am working it now. I have some travel for work coming up, so I'll be a little delayed. I am playing it as Soviets vs. AI, even though you call for it to be H2H. We'll see how aggressive the German AI is at +2 CEB.

I have to say that the initial Soviet set-up looks terrifyingly lethal, and quite accurate from all that I've read on the subject. I also read your Russian Way of War document to get more insight on this. I left the Soviet set-up on default, as I wanted to preserve the accuracy of your research. It truly gives one more insight on just how difficult the Germans had it trying to breach the Soviet defense in depth during the Kursk battles. It is one thing to read about it in books, and study the maps. But then to see it in 3D, guns bristling everywhere, mine fields sprouting all over....it brings the whole thing to life before your eyes. That is the part I most enjoy about this game.

I shall report on this as I get further into the battle. It looks positively beastly.

Heinrich505

[JoMac]

Heinrich,

How about this below, I use it in all my BB/AK games as a general rule of thumb with some variants.

- If planning on or already have a Fast Move order this turn; Can engage out to quarter max range ( 500 meters for most direct fire vehicles ).

This because, I believe while Fast moving you only have time to spot and engage units that are at short range.

- If planning on or already have a Move or Hunt Order this turn; Can engage out to half its max range ( 1000 meters for most dircet fire vehicles ). Hunt just allows you to halt and fire more accurately, but since its not fully stationary the entire turn, it wont benifit from having max range.

- If planning on or already have a Shoot & Scoot Order ( its a fast shoot order ); Can engage out to quarter its max range ( 500 meters for most direct fire vehicles ).

This because, I believe thats only enough time to spot, engage before falling back to cover.

- If Stationary for whole turn; Can engage out to max range ( 2000 meters for most direct fire vehicles ).

- If combining orders that turn, then take the worst case when determing your max range that turn.

Since the Soviet C & C is rigid when Attacking with large formations of Armor and Inf ( Bn on up ), there should be some additional factors or penalties. Force the Soviets to only use the Move or Fast Move order ( along with a max firing arc range of 500 meters for both ) till atleast one unit in the formation passes an objective, when in the following turns they may use any order.

Only give Stationary, or Hunt orders to units meant to overwatch the advance ( TDs, SP guns, Field Pieces ).

This is where the majority of the soviet casualties are caused

However, If playing small Soviet defenses or Counter-Attacks ( ex; A Soviet tank Plt along with an Inf Co takes a village and Germans counter-attack later - Basically how we play most of our BB games ) the Soviet C & C is not as rigid at this smaller scale. I would then suggest to use the normal system at top.

This is where the soviet casualties are usually minimized.

180 degree arcs will prevent distractions on the far flanks of the advance, especailly for Soviet trying to take a position and engaging only at short range or die trying.

This also lets each attacking force worry about its own flanks while Stationary (overwatch) units fire at Medium to long range to the front or to protect the flanks of those advancing units.

[Vark]

Do different movement commands impact on morale, as with the infantry? If a T-34 is moving fast is it more likely to run away when engaged, or are tanks immune from this unrealistic mechanism?

[dieseltaylor]

Not morale simply spotting is very much reduced at fast. Its not that clever on move either. Or when the tank is buttoned when it becomes very poor - excepting those superior tanks with cupolas : ). Hence Joe's homemade rules are doubling the penalty. Also he suggests that shoot and scoot is a reverse move but that does not have to be the case as it works very nicely moving forwards as this thread started out to prove.

[Vark]

To be honest, with borg spotting as long as you have friendly infantry around it does not make too much of a difference. I once had a JSU-152 refuse to target a German squad (spotted by tank riders) but AI tanks seem omniscient when supported by even a few footsloggers. I think the variable spotting routines used in SF and replicated? in Normandy and the future releases will be an enormous step forward in highlighting the vulnerability of buttoned AFV's, even with infantry escort.

Is there a resource which explains how Russians fought their tanks! I've heard of pell-mell charges and firing on the move to fast dashes and firing on the short halt or whilst creeping along. How did/did their their tactics change to reflect their equipment, tactics training and greater availability of radios. Did the SPG's and tank destroyers have different tactics, or was it just overwatch and relocation drills? I know infantry made short dashes into any available cover, when engaged (impossible to replicate with the current CM1 engine) but as for tanks I just have disperate accounts or dubious German 'after action reports'.

[Heinrich505]

JoMc67,

A very interesting set of rules. Soviet armor had very rigid command early on in the war, suffering from lack of radios and the commander also working as a gunner. The use of flag signals for formations and everyone pretty much doing exactly as the command tank ment for some pretty stilted action on their part. I think your set of rules is approaching that fairly well. I like the covered arcs simply because I've had tanks that suddenly whirled their turrets to target infantry while they were racing forwards, only to have enemy armor tear them apart from the front, where their doggone turret should have been facing in the first place.

Their rigidity eased up a bit as the war went on but it seems they still felt their strength lay in mass firing of all units or closing fast with the enemy armor and overwhelming them. Hence your rules for limited range on covered arcs while continuing to close would also serve a tank charge.

I'll have to check into them. They seem like pretty good "house" rules.

Heinrich505

[dieseltaylor]

And so easily enforced.

BTW I am playing a Normandy bocage scenario [Vire] currently and tank losses are very high because the tanks and infantry cannot spot the Germans until too late. So it would seem in the right terrain that infantry are more than capable under the current engine.

[JoMac]

Heinrich,

Yes, and both your comments above is why I like to have mandatory covered arcs in all my games. It works well with both, the early war Soviet rigid C & C system,( early war scenarios, you still need to have things like Soviets coming on piece-meal or arriving late, or Germans start on Soviet flank for it all to work together ) and the late war less rigid but more mythodical Soviet Mass & overwhelming strengh tactics.

Mind you, I also use these House Rules for both BB/AK and for all Nationalities.

[Heinrich505]

Der Alte Fritz,

Sorry for the delay. I had a lot of travel to deal with the past two weeks, and all work related, I am afraid.

I have finished your Melikhovo 5 PM, playing as Soviet against the AI with a +2 CEB. The primary mission on this was to see how the Soviet armor charge fared against the AI, using the shoot-and-scoot maneuver we've been discussing.

The whole scenario is quite interesting, although from a Soviet position in H2H, I would say there isn't much to do except see if the German player can break through your already well thought-out placement. The Soviet H2H player will end up counter-attacking any success his human opponent manages to incur. To that extent, it might not hold a lot of excitement until much later in the game.

As for the Soviet armor charge, it seemed to go quite well. Out of a total of about 20 Soviet tanks, 18 T-34 and 2 T-70, I had only one T-70 knocked out immediately. All the rest advanced quickly and safely(?) until partway across the map. I had one T-34 immobilized, and shortly he was dispatched. On the other hand, my hail-fire seemed to be somewhat successful, knocking out several halftracks and several Mark III tanks that had been immobilized by mines and were facing wrong way. Rear hull hits were the result of those encounters.

Once I got closer, things got really bad fast. Several immobilized Tiger tanks took a bloody toll on my T-34s with highly accurate flank shots, as well as one Tiger that had crashed into the village and was now facing the oncoming tank charge, practically solo. Once a brave Soviet tank-hunter team dispatched that Tiger, the charging T-34s had a chance, and I rushed them into the relative safety of the Soviet lines, where they were no longer in LOS from the immobilized Tigers. Then the game ended, but I had successfully(?) rushed 4 intact T-34s, 1 gun-damaged T-34, and one T-70 across the map. As they had to deal with a very significant volume of flank fire, I'd say it was a better than expected result.

In a tip of the hat to JoMc67, I should have included covered arcs, as my charging T-34 tanks were distracted by straggling infantry and crews. The shoot-and-scoot commands managed to over-ride the tank commanders' natural proclivity to reverse once they faced Tigers they couldn't destroy. This kept them moving forward despite seeing their fellow tankers exploding in flames from hits by 88mm shells.

I would say it was somewhat of a success, considering they were charging across a flanking-fire swept area, with some but not much terrain cover, and into the face of an angry Tiger tank. The AI had some stellar gunnery practice, but I managed to get about 1/4 of my tanks into the village area. Along the way, they convinced many immobilized German AI tankers to abandon their broken crates, and they destroyed quite a few halftracks while on the move.

As for being historically successful, I think it works well to simulate a Soviet tank charge within the present game parameters. From accounts I have read, Soviet tank gunners were strongly encouraged to fire their guns while on the move, especially while en-mass in large tank formations. The idea was two-fold. There was a fair chance that with twenty or so guns all firing at targets at the same time, they might hit or suppress the enemy positions or tanks. The second was to boost morale and keep the crew busy, instead of them holding on as the tank bounced around in a crazy charge, with their fear increasing as they waited to get closer to the enemy position, all the while expecting some enemy shell to tear through their steel crate and set them ablaze.

I'll go into more detail on the overall impressions I have over in The Proving Grounds for your scenario. It was quite an interesting time, viewing a small part of history seem to come to life in 3D, after having read so much about Kursk. Very nicely done.

Heinrich505

[JasonC]

Um, if you think losing 3/4 of your armor crossing one field, while merely immobilizing a few enemy AFVs, or finishing off weaker types already immobilized by mines, constitutes a "success", what would unmitigated flaming disaster look like?

This is all utter buncomb, start to finish. It is merely encouraging Russian CMBB players to imitate clay pigeons for the wanna-be Tiger worshipping set. Ignore it as horrible advice from determined enemies.

The right way to use T-34s is to bushwhack single Panzer IVs with whole platoons, or very occasionally single overmodeled uber-StuGs by making them turn while putting a full platoon 90 degrees off their distracted front - and even the last is playing with fire. Better still, use entire T-34 platoons just to smack infantry around, while other arms deal with the enemy tanks.

As for Tigers, cheat. Bring IL-2s, 300mm rocket artillery, lots and lots of 57mm ATGs from hiding at 500 meters, tank hunters at 45 meters from hiding, hidden AT mines, flamethrowers, 37mm AA guns at 1200 meters from full cover, late model IS-2s, and only in a horrible pinch T-34/85s or SU-152s firing by pairs and scooting back out of LOS at already buttoned and distracted single opponents.

Do not, repeat, do not, feed the kitties.

[Vark]

Jason, is your advice to "cheat" based on the the inherent problems with the CM engine being unable to simulate certain tactical factors which allowed such an aggressive approach.A reflection of reality, Russians 'cheated' when confronting such bests or the unrealistic frequency with which uber-tanks appear in matchups? How, I wonder will the CM2 engine affect any of these approaches?

[Vark]

Should read beasts!!

[JasonC]

All of the above.

German players cherry pick ruthlessly. Cherry pick right back at them.

When they cry about it, tell them you will take T-34/76s when they take Pz III longs in 1942 and Panzer IV longs in 1943 - not overmodeled 80mm front StuGs and Tiger Is respectively.

And war isn't about playing fair, it isn't about symmetry, it isn't elaborate suicide (OK, for some countries... but I digress...)

Your opponent is looking for the match ups in which his most expensive items can pay for themselves several times over by taking out valuable portions of your force without loss to themselves. About the biggest lopsided trade that ever occurs with any frequency is one thick-front AFV blowing apart several undergunned AFVs. It kills 3 times what it costs and lives.

You can't give that kind of trade to the enemy, for any material portion of the whole point budget, and expect to win anything, or to make it up anywhere else.

But you can afford to spend 75 points on a 57mm ATG that kills one StuG from ambush (even at defender's odds), let alone one Tiger. If it kills one Tiger, you are the one getting the 3 to 1 return, instead of him. You can even afford to spend a tank's worth on a 300mm rocket barrage that only has a medium chance of immobilizing or gun damaging an enemy AFV - because it will clock infantry regardless.

Now, you can't expect decent human players to hand you many tank hunter or flamethrower or AT mine kills of their big cats - but terrain and time pressure do stuff sometimes. The generalized threat of a tank's worth of the things scattered all over restricts them, etc. Panzerschrecks would be better obviously (hey, vs early war stuff you can use ampulets...)

The second worse form of tactics is mindless mashing of like on like, merely hoping to win coin tosses. But the worst is even more mindless mashing of someone on its specific counter. The enemy is supposed to work like the dickens to get those match ups. If you hand them to him, he might as well be playing solitaire. Heck, even honest solitaire isn't that recklessly in favor of just one side.

Why you anyone do this on purpose? To die cinematically?

A French attache watched the light brigade go in, and remarked "it's magnificant, but it is not war".

[Vark]

Jason, do you think a more accurate AFV damage model in CM would go towards mitigating the uber-tank reign, as the vehicles suffer gradual attrition. I'm thinking about simulating, albeit quite crudely, non-penetrating hits on Tigers knocking out their electrical traverse motors, forcing the use of manual hand cranks which, in the case of the Tiger, required two full revolutions for each degree of turret rotation. Or vision blocks cracked and damaged so that the vehicle looses a high degree of situational awareness, unless the commander unbuttons, and radio aerials blown off by near miss HE strikes, forcing greater command delays. Or would a better AFV engine remove unrealistic factors which over-accentuate the effectiveness of Russian armour, i.e. no rear facing periscopes on some T-34's allowing panzer-jager tactics of stalking and ambush.

[Cuirassier]

More important than any of those things for CMBB 2 would be to model Soviet AT weapons correctly. Meaning 76.2mm L/42 goes through 80mm plate under 500m, reliably. Stugs would lose their dominance and Tigers would at least be vulnerable to the historical 'flank and close' method.

Tigers will always remain an uber weapon, however. That is what they were historically. German players just need to be responsible when choosing forces and understand that Tigers were never even close to having a majority within the German AFV fleet. In 1943 games, German players should almost uniformly take Pz III L/60, Pz IV and Marders.

[dieseltaylor]

vark - Tigers do take gradual attrition. Hail fire works against all tanks and is the tactic the Russians used. The most potent weapon for the buck [in game] is the 20mm AA. Most tank crews will bail if immobilised and hail fire will get that quite quickly.

SO if someone goes Tiger heavy normally I am quite pleased even if I am playing with 76's and ValentineIX's. BTw my most successful recent 20mm event was immobilising a Tiger and winning a game long duel with a 150mm infantry gun at about 1550 metres. A very resonable return on a small investment. However I do play on the largest maps. On a small map the chances of remaing unidentified as an AA gun or getting flanking shots as a tank diminishes hugely.

I do have a big problem with the concept of small maps as though miraculously the rest of the world disappears. My preferred answer is you may have small points and limited flags to go for but situate that within a very large map will still mean players gravitate to the flag but they have to consider there are no rigid sides to defend them - a tad more RL I think.

[JasonC]

Vark - tanks can be wrecked by "hail fire" in CMBB, as is. It occurs through "gun damage" and especially "immobilization" results. Enough subsequent hits and the crew will sometimes bail, and it always will if both are achieved. (M-killed but thick tanks are perhaps a bit too resilient, but it isn't hopelessly off).

The main realism issue in the armor model is the nerfing of the vanilla Russian 76mm, and also of the 85mm during 1943. The former is "justified" by highly dubious armor quality fudge factors. The latter is justified by nothing (claims of poor ammo quality and shatter gap modeling, but nothing historically tactical - nobody seriously defends 85mm AP bouncing from 80mm plate, but in CMBB it does, until better ammo appears in 1944). Overall, the armor penetration model is too generous to smaller calibers vs. larger ones of similar muzzle energy. This reflects the idea that the smaller round needs to bore a smaller hole, but it ignores armor shatter, which becomes significant as round diameter exceeds armor thickness. Point corrections for the upper hull of the Panther are put down to poor armor quality later in the war, and the like.

The underlying point in my post is not, however, that old debate. Water under the bridge, not going to change, and doesn't get in the way of enjoying CMBB. If players want historically realistic matchups using the common equipment, pit Panzer III longs and Marders against T-34s in 1942, and Panzer IV longs against them in 1943. If instead they want to play with big cats, untie the Russian fighter's hands, too.

Banzai charges with clay pigeon T-34s at Tigers are dumb, compared to either. No sensible Russian commander should do them. It is easy to show why. In CMBB, if you put a T-34/76 with subcaliber ammunition from 1944 - as good as their ammo gets - 100 meters away from a buttoned Tiger I, facing it 90 degrees, perfect "T", with the Tiger's turret dead ahead, and the T-34 ready to fire - the Tiger I is a 3 to 1 favorite to kill the T-34, instead of the reverse. Fact, go try it. (Low behind armor effect will let the Tiger live long enough to turn more often than not, and as soon as it does the shots will bounce, and as soon as it fully aligns the T-34 will die). So where are you going as you charge around the field? If setting up the perfect and I mean the perfect shot, killed them reliably, maybe. It flat doesn't, so don't bother. (You need a full platoon in that position to be the favorite - 2 on 1 is a coin toss).

If you want to try fights in which T-34s mean something and approximately what they actually meant in the real war, I shamelessly recommend my own scenario packs for operations Uranus, Saturn, and Kutuzov. Each has a half-dozen scenarios. The German will *occasionally* get 1-2 thick front items. And frequently will get 80mm hull Panzer IV longs that are superior to T-34s in tank duels - but in the same weight class. And sometimes, horror of horrows, they will get less (particular the Uranus fighting). You will see fights in which a T-70 counts as a tank, if a light one.

Just break out of the Tiger and StuG uber-cherry meeting engagement rut. All the game needs...

[Der Alte Fritz]

As you know JasonC I agree with you about Tigers. But in the Melikhovo 5pm scenario it is a historic scenario and the Tigers were there. But the Russians have several opportunities to kill/immobilise Tigers in the early part of the scenario by 152mm guns, AT mines TH, a 20mm AA gun and a Pe2. They also have to exit off the board and it is a maximum size board so they have a lot of driving to do and a lot tend to get bogged. The idea of the Russian 'charge' is that once the Tigers have driven off north to exit, there is an opportunity for a T34 battalion to cross this large map quickly so that they can get in among the lighter tanks HT and assembled infantry and slaugther them. Start a long range duel and you get nowhere but by using the shoot and scoot tactic you can cross ground rapidly while getting "accurate" fire results and a braver sort of tank crew. The problem arises when the immobilised Tigers are left in the south in which case it would probably be better to leave your T34s at the starting point or use dead ground to avoid the Tigers and still kill soft targets.

[JasonC]

Last part is the right answer. Use dead ground. Run from cover to cover. Keep the kitties distracted by other targets to exploit their slow turrets, or smoke the gaps they can see your route through.

Don't feed the kitties.

[Vark]

Jason, I'm no Tiger fan and have been concentrating on infantry heavy engagements circa 42-43, uber armour, my gun has a bigger calibre gun than yours, pissing contests are quite frankly a bore. I take your point about hail fire and the resultant and mobility and firepower kills and wonder, given their effectiveness in CM why light flak was not issued to anti-tank units. I do remember for a joke buying 20 light flak units and watching as they took apart a Tiger platoon, something my T-34's were loathe/unable to do!

My point is that CM is a game that should evolve and part of that evolution should be to try to replicate factors which confronted real commanders. Sure, pick Tigers, but make sure they do not move backwards, otherwise the supporting infantry might misconstrue your motives and panic. "S**t! If the Tigers are retreating we are in real trouble!" Oh, our nice shiney Panthers are so dependent on rail movement that they have been detrained in such a hurry that they have not had a chance to establish a radio net etc etc. I don't know if this is just mental masturbation over an implementationally impossible dream but I do wish that designers were not constantly reinforcing the uber-German myth for financial gain. Then again supply side economics triumphs historical realism and CM is afterall just a game.

I'll try out your scenario packs when I've finished George Mc's pack (I've had to temporarily cease playing, as the combination of those superb scenarios and my recently aquired modding ability was causing serious attrition to my work schedule).

A final point, early war scenarios are spoiled because the Russian 45mm is eriously under modelled, who would have thought it! Can anyone thing of any rule system that short changed German firepower?

[Nero's Cat]

Hi - anybody know where I can get Jason C's scenario packs for operations Uranus, Saturn, and Kutuzov?

Regards

[JasonC]

They are at the Proving Grounds...