New To Combat Mission. (Question)

[Trav87]

Hey everyone and Merry Xmas, Just like to say I love CMBB! . Anyways I'm currently tackling the Advanced Tutorial Scen, my qualm isn't commanding the infantry (must be the fact I'm a ground pounder as well). My IS-IIs are getting dominated by one panther (but by the time they all get in position there is 4 panthers to my 3 or so IS-2s moving fast) when coordinating a combined assault, or bounding overwatch. Flanking doesn't work either.

I have a few books that state in around 1944 the german armor quality was degrading. I also read a book on the Russian IS series in combat where several veteren Russian IS-II tankers reported that hitting the front glacial plate of a panther, with a HE 122mm A-19 shell alone would shatter the front Glacis plate (so why not the AP variant?). I find the shells even break apart sometimes when they hit. I thought they could kill a panther out to 750 meters easily. I also wondered if the ROF of the IS-2 is realistic, I believe a panther gets about 5 shots to my one.

I know the round was seperate from the powder but would it take that long to load the powder? My average crews don't want to fight the panthers when they see one allied IS tank destroyed. I even tried putting them on the ridge to the south of the first objective they just want to reverse . I even attempt to use my IS-IIs that are ranked "Conscript" to draw the fire of the panthers with a fast move and bring up the Reg/Avg/Green/ to hit them from above but still can't succeed (Cruel to the poor conscripts I know). I tried smoke cover as well but it doesn't work well.

Any help would appreciated guys!

[JasonC]

Play the Germans. Duh.

But seriously, welcome to the headaches of play balance in CMBB armor.

"Cower" is the behavior of reversing out of view without engaging, whenever targeted by any tank that can kill the cowering tank. Russian tanks have horrible cower behavior, and the heaviest tanks have it the worst. Something had to help the gibbering gibbons clutching their copies of Signal magazine and keep them from soiling their shorts facing actual historical Russian armor...

No the ROF isn't accurate. I've done 4 rounds a minute on a larger gun with a longer and more complicated loading process. In person I mean. But in CM, expect 2-3 rounds a minute from the Russians 122mm. The Panther will get 6 per minute, thus outshooting you 2 or 3 to 1. It should have a slight edge, like 1.5 to 1, but not 2-3.

As for hits on the glacis not going in, in the game it turns on the era of the Panther, with the later ones rated 85% armor qualityt being appropriately vulnerable. The panzerwaffe wannabes decided every plate that ever failed must have been a bad batch of late war items, so plenty of earlier Panthers will bounce 122mm AP from the glacis. Turret hits will go in however and will kill. So you want to hit them when they are hull down if fighting from the front aspect. This does reduce the hit chance but will raise the kill chance vs. the earlier model Panthers. A side hull up is better of course.

The early IS-2s get lousy hull armor modeling but the late IS-2s are solid there. The rounded turret is undermodeled and will typically resist like 30 degrees of slope and sometimes less. Only a rare high "roll" on the round armor angle will glance. Basically you should assume your turret is paper and fight hull up rather than hull down, if you can.

To deal with cower the key thing is to avoid the "hunt" movement command like the plague. On hunt for Russian heavies, it reads something like "if you think you are invulnerable, crawl into LOS, otherwise run like a girl". Use fast move into position or the shoot and scoot command, instead. Shoot and scoot can also address the ROF issue sometimes, reloading out of LOS. The best firing position is one which is hull up on a short move, and completely out of sight on a short reverse - like from out behind a stone building "lair".

The Panthers are given fairly slow turrets. Hull rotation is also slower in the game than in real life. Use it, by hitting from two separated positions not one, with those shoot and scoot orders to the first to appear. it is a ridiculous level of teamwork coordination and micromanagement, but it can pay off in the game. The ideal is an IS-2 gets LOS, with the angle already set perfectly so you don't spend time rotating yourself, and fires its one round. The Panther reacts by rotating toward you, you skedaddle back behind a stone building before it gets "on" you. Then your teammate bounces out from 90 degrees off his new turret facing. Repeat.

The horrible part is this means you don't get any of the round to round "homing" that the Panther gets in reply. Which means short ranges are required. If you stand toe to toe and just duel instead, he gets 6 shots to 2-3, homes faster, and is a very heavy favorite. When there are 2-3 of the suckers, you probably die before a second round clears your tube.

Better to mask them, when they are together like that. Smoke 'em if you got 'em...

Basically you need to handle even IS-2s as though they were T-34/85s or Easy Eight Shermans...

[Trav87]

Thank you very much Jason for the much needed help.

I shall report the results if I do any better lol.. I did manage to bag two Panthers at approximately 450 meters using the SU-152. I managed to kill a Tiger IE at 786 Meters (before I got your informative reply) with a 122mm Shell. But than the brave Crew of the IS-II suffered a catastrophic explosion from a 75mm KWK40 through the front hull and lost the entire crew. The game was a flop in the long run I lost 13 AFVs to the German's 2 panthers and one Tiger I. I managed a final score of 44% resulting in a Minor defeat .

[rune]

I am going to disagree with Jason here. The Russians themselves give the low rate of fire. I quote:

" In January of 1944 the last 40 JS-85s were manufactured at the ChKZ. After this, it produced only the JS-122. These mounted the new 122 mm Tank Cannon D-25T with a wedge-shaped semi-automatic breech, which allowed an increased rate of fire from 1–1.5 shots per minute to 1.5–2 shots per minute. In March 1944, the «German-type» muzzle brake was replaced with a better design from the TsAKB. At the same time, the JS-85 was renamed JS-1, and the JS-122 was renamed JS-2.

At this stage, the issue of the JS-2's armament was not completely resolved. The military was not satisfied with its low rate of fire and limited ammunition stowage — only 28 two-piece rounds (compared to the 59 one-piece rounds for the JS-1 and 114 one-piece rounds for the KV-1S)."

The entire articles is avail at:

http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-development/28-heavy-tanks/32-js1-js2.html

Also note the problems the Russians had with the armour on the IS-2

Rune

[JoMac]

Hey Trav,

Jason C is correct on the best way to handle Russian vs German Armor in CMBB.

However, Rune is also correct in the ROF of the JS2 being close to 2 rounds a minute which is fairly represented in CMBB.

Trav, if interested in some Platoon upto Reinforced Company size games just let me know, and we can do some PBEM or TCP.

I tried to PM or Email regarding this, but you don't have it setup yet.

[JasonC]

Rune - the US M109 155mm SP howitzer is rated 1 round a minute sustained in official documents and in most sources 2 rounds a minute otherwise. But it fact can be fired 4 times per minute. I've done so, so don't bother trying to tell me that isn't so. And it is a heavier shell, separate loading, and a more complex loading procedure.

Single official listings for rate of fire typically have to split the difference between what the gun will handle in heat dissipation terms without burning out, and therefore what the brass wants done on a routine basis, and what the gun crew can actually physically pull off in a "time and motion" maximum sense, for a single surge minute of fire. Needless to say, when your life depends on it the second higher number is the real one, not the former...

[Merkin Muffley]

Jason, although your M109 experience gives you a real familiarity with the process, isn't the comparison between an M109 turret and JSII turret marked by a huge disparity in size? It's not going to help the JSII's rate at all.

[JoMac]

And its not just the loading time thats taking into account, but the sighting & targeting that takes time in regards to ROF.

Ofcourse, in Jason C statement, then all Weapons would have that higher ROF anyways in those few minutes of fire, and the outcome would still be the same just at a faster rate.

[dieseltaylor]

Bear in mind the official [theoretical] 30 rounds per minute for a Sherman 75. How fast a gun fires and its effectiveness at aiming tend to be two different things. Unfortunately BF did not model this sort of behaviour into the game.

Giving area fire at a large building at 500 metres would surely be a higher fire rate than shooting at a tank at 1000m. .... oh well

[rune]

My counter is simple.

1. Multiple sources all say the same thing.

2. the 122mm gun the is3 used when in artillery form had a crew of 9. Its rate of fire is listed by multiple sites, including the us army, as 3-4 rounds per minute. In a crowded turret with less crew i cannot see it maintaining hte same rate of fire.

Rune

[JasonC]

The larger crew just does ammo prep and hauls shells to the gun.

That means things like unpacking crates of fuzes, screwing them on to the top of the shells and tightening them with a wrench; unpacking powder and "cutting" charge increments to the amount called for by a given fire mission, tying the increments to be used for the shot to the main powder charge; hauling the shells and powder bags to the gun and stacking them where the loader can pick them up.

The gun itself is "run" by a gunner who looks through a sight, and cranks hand screws to level his bubbles after dialing in the deflection and quadrant angles - sometimes another guy can help by cranking the second angle in. The loader, and it is only one, seats the shell and the powder, primes the firing mechanism and pulls the lanyard. There can be a second guy on a ramrod to fully seat the shell in the breech, a marginal time saver compared to the main loader doing that, but not a large one. Anybody else is just going to get in the way.

[Trav87]

Hey Trav,

Jason C is correct on the best way to handle Russian vs German Armor in CMBB.

However, Rune is also correct in the ROF of the JS2 being close to 2 rounds a minute which is fairly represented in CMBB.

Trav, if interested in some Platoon upto Reinforced Company size games just let me know, and we can do some PBEM or TCP.

I tried to PM or Email regarding this, but you don't have it setup yet.

I PM'd you, sorry for the delay in replying!

[rune]

Trying to dig into why so slow...the only reference I have found to this point refers to a problem with the breech, and the gun had to be a certain angle for it to be loaded. However, take that with a grain of salt, since it was only 1 web site, and not so overly fond of the source. I will dig into it more... bu am also thinking they may be correct, why else change to a partial auto-loader? More IF I find anything on it.

Rune

[Vark]

1. I'm pretty sure a IS-2/Js-152 crew had plenty of short cuts to the loading routine, given the fact their lives depended on it. Trouble is I'm sure the German crews also had short cuts which boost their ROF so it should equal out.

2. When playing with IS-2's I normally stack 2-3 against each Panther/Tiger and obtain a kill rate of 3:1. Whether it is realistic is not the point, the CMBB game system favours Russian equipment being used en masse, especially at longer ranges. I also have a delayed move fast, if their is little cover, so the IS-2's move quickly as they reload and halt for their second shot (mitigates the stupid cower action, even had an IS-2 cower from a Pz-IV before)

[rune]

Ok, here is what I have found so far:

"The 122mm was a two component load i.e. the round and charge was separate just as with large artillery shells so it took twice as long to load in contrast to the German 88s had a shell casing that had both charge and round.

The 122mm on the IS2 was so big that they had to lower the barrel just for to reload, where the Tiger II could stay on target and reload. This means the IS had to re aim after each shot so the time between shots are a lot longer then the reload procedure. This may be the cause of the Russian crews frequently evacuated their IS2s after being shot at as German follow up rounds came very quick or in large numbers. Russian tank crews are otherwise one of the most disciplined in the war rather dying in their tanks fighting then evacuating (they were actually severely punished if found leaving their vehicles). "

Grain of salt as I said, but found references to a book I am searching for.

Rune

[ArgusEye]

As you can see, the gun took up much of the space in the turret, making it tricky to get into a pleasant position to ram the shell home:

The IS2 was not an artillery piece, it was a tank, and therefore had other considerations for its gun reload rate than barrel life in sustained fire. It was an ergonomic disaster, especially with respect to loading. The loaders constantly had to overreach themselves whilst handling very heavy shells. The machine was not above knocking out loaders whilst slewing, and had problems letting the crew escape as well. I've stuck my head inside one example, and that was plenty claustrophobic. The NBdPzT states repeatedly that the IS2 crews are remarkably quick to bail. The Germans interpret this as lack of faith in their machine, I personally suspect it had more to do with the fact that the hatches were known to seize shut when the tank got hit.

Given the (here we are again) bad ammunition quality, there are reports that attempts to load with the barrel elevated ran a risk of the projectile falling back out after loading into the breech, and before the charge was placed.

If the low rate of fire was to spare the barrel, why then would the fire rate suddenly increase when the breech mechanism was changed? Why would the Russians adopt a field tactic shielding a reloading IS2 with another, for the first only to emerge when it had reloaded?

[Vark]

Given the IS-2 carried twice as much HE ammo as AP its role as a breakthrough tank is obvious. In essence, the IS-2 was a tracked artillery piece which could destroy the opponents most likely encountered during a breakthrough with direct fire,infantry, field fortifications, AT positions and reserve formations of assault guns. If they are encountering Panthers, Tigers and Pz IV's then they have done their job, as the Germans are having to commit valuable armoured resources to stop them exploiting their penetration of the MLR.

As for bailing after being hit, makes sense, an experienced tank crew is far more valuable than a tank, especially if there is a good rate of production and supply for that tank. I have read of similar behaviour in the Western desert and the ETO by allied tankers, the German reports seem to see this as an indication of inferior machines, true maybe, but in 1944 it speaks of a vast superiority in logistical capability and that is the war winner, not ROF or poor egonomics. In 1944 the Germans had to risk their crews to recover their valuable heavies, which in turn caused greater crew casualties and put stress on existing machines. As I said before if you are encountering armour you have done your job and there are plenty of other weapon systems that can be deployed to take on the opposition.

Take a company of IS-2's plus infantry and attack a fortified village complete with field defences, give the Germans a company of infantry (simulating a depleted battalion but lots of HMG's and a moderate number of 75 Pak 40's). Have a couple of under strength platoons of Stugs as an armoured reserve and let battle commence, the 122 HE will obliterate any structure and decimate any infantry in them and AT guns are KO's or pinned by near misses. Oh and the Stugs burn nicely but can kill, if they ambush the IS-2's but that means sacrificing the infantry and catching the Stalins as they advance. The greatest danger is to the increasingly effective German infantry, but a preparatory barrage of HE in likely hiding places is highly effective and there the low ROF is a blessing.

[dieseltaylor]

Good piece Vark.

I do have a quibble in that decimate originally meant reduce by a tenth, now it is used widely but not everyone is sure how much decimate actually means - in fact it may mean to some that a tenth is left. In your example that is probably correct. : )

I try to steer clear of it because of this vagueness and in your example wipe-out or obliterate might be closer. I have not carried out the necessar tests yet.! : )

[Vark]

Thanks for the kind words, yup, take your point about decimate. I did not like using it as am aware of its true meaning, in terms of legionary martial punishment, but it was all my adled brain could manage a victim of travelling in 18th century, everything stops for 3mm of snow, Britain. I should have been more precise, most times a 122mm hits an occupied village building only 2-3 men are left, it is particularly effective versus crew served weapons and does not need a direct hit to panic veteran crews. Entrenched infantry are also supressed easily though a direct hit is often needed. I played a game last night and lost an IS-2 to a pillbox, had one bog and crew shocked on two others with a gun damaged on the command tank (playing three platoons of 2 plus 1 independent as a command tank, I really wish proper AFV's companies with HQ's and XO's could have been represented).

CMBB is a game where players love pitching certain AFV's against each other, and who does not, but then some cannot resist the temptation to play the, whose is better, based on these games. An IS-2 was not designed to take on the German heavies, unless the tactical situation was so shaped by an on going operation, or the proverbial was hitting the fan! Again a reason I wish then had carried on with CM campaigns, the German player would then have had to use his ever decresing tank force to constantly react to Russian attacks. Sure, he might even fend off 50-60% of them with a good exchange rate but the remainder would get through and further constrain his options.

As a senior researcher at the at the Royal College of Military Science said, the Germans were tactically good, operationally average and strategically weak, the Russians were the reverse and who won? In the tactical arena, Soviet hardware and infantry on a man for man, tank for tank basis should be inferior, the Soviets recognised this themselves, hence the IS-2 compromise and many others forced on them. The often forgotten fact though is that the IS-2 was designed be the tip of a relentless armoured fist that would bring ultimate victory, a concept that had died in most sane German commanders minds, confronting the reality of the Eastern Front. So, they rewrote the conflict, along with complicit Westerners locked in the Cold War, to focus on the myriad tactical successes and odd operational victory. The end result are generations of gamers whose mindset is tactical, not strategic and it spawns interesting but often pointless my armour is harder than yours debate. Very revealingly it also generates endless "What would have happened if" discussions, amongst these gamers, that highlight the Germans critical weakness, failure in the strategic and operational arenas.

Final point regarding ergononics, having sat in the most common tanks of all participants in WWII are their any that are ergonomically designed? The Panzer IV's design brief seemed to be, make every metal component have sharp 90 degree angles and cram as many into the fighting compartment as possible!

[ArgusEye]

The reason the Germans find the bailing from IS2's so peculiar is their experience with other tanks; Soviet crews were well known to stick around in knocked out tanks, hoping to slink back to enemy lines later. They would get into huge trouble for bailing prematurely. It was common procedure to check dead tanks for hiding crew.

As to the Germans losing more crew than the Soviets, I confess myself incredulous. I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, are you sure about that?

The IS2 was, indeed, a breakthrough tank, with much the same role as the Tiger. You need a machine that can attack the enemy defenses and survive long enough to effect a break in the line. The actual exploitation is done by lighter machines. But before that happens, there is some defense in depth to go through. The machine is not just an assault gun, it is a tank. It is not just meant to shell from the safe side of the infantry, it is supposed to take and hold positions, whilst the rest of the attack develops. It is the point of the spear, not just a support. This also means that it gets to suffer the counterthrusts and counterattacks, which is why Stavka specified that the IS2 should have a gun that enabled it to face of with kitties. The high HE load enabled it to kill PAK, making the way safe for its lighter brethren. The AP was to quell the inevitable counterattacks. Those are a very important part of its job, not the sign that the job is done.

I haven't sat in many tanks, but the difference between a Pz III and a IS2 is palpable. The smaller tank has easier hatches, better placed viewing ports (that don't require wedging yourself between moving equipment), foldaway seats (nice if you're loading), turret basket, polstered edges to avoid getting cut open, better lighting, and generally space to work in. It's not a pleasant place to be, but it is better to work in.

[Bigduke6]

Given the (here we are again) bad ammunition quality, there are reports that attempts to load with the barrel elevated ran a risk of the projectile falling back out after loading into the breech, and before the charge was placed.

That's very interesting, I've never read that the projectile could fall out of the breech of 122mm cannon. Any chance I could get a look at one of those reports you're referring to?

If we are going to think about the Is-2, we need to remember the Soviet armored doctrine, and how the tank fit into that. The Stalin's job was to go where the fire was heavy, and blast things. The top targets were crew-served weapons, particularly AT cannon, MG, and bunkers.

Panzers are not a priority for the Stalin. It is not a Tiger. It is not a tank designed to kill tanks, and to see Soviet heavy tanks as such is to misunderstand, in a fairly substantial way, the logic of Soviet doctrine.

The Soviets understood full well that the 122mm was not the best weapon for a tank duel, precisely because of its speed of firing. They actually considered installing the better-perfoming 100mm gun in the Stalin, and nixed the idea because that would have meant less Stalins with a less-powerful HE shell.

If that doesn't seem rational to you, then you aren't thinking Soviet.

If that makes great sense to you, then why are you consorting with Capitalists, Comrade?

For the record, what I've read from the recollections of actual Stalin crew, they seem to say they thought they could fire at 3-4 rounds a minute if they needed to, see the Reznikov interview on Russian Battlefield. But it was clearly understood that that rate of fire, against a heavier German tank or medium to small AT gun, was in and of itself insufficient.

The Stalin in the Red Army system was capable of tank to tank slugging contests, and the Soviets understood very well that a 122mm HE round was quite capable of knocking out an Axis medium tank without penetrating the armor, I've read repeated accounts of that, usually as part of a list of the good things about the gun. But again, that was something the crews were aware of, rather than a tactic they routinely employed so they could gun down Tigers.

For the most part, the Stalin was committed in a sector to reduce strong defensive positions the medium tanks and/or infantry and/or artillery could not handle. By and large, the problem was direct and indirect artillery fire making infantry and even medium tank advance too costly.

The Stalin provided a simple solution: Stand off as far as possible, and fire 122mm HE until enemy fire is supressed. Then the mediums can get moving again.

The key defensive aspect of the Stalin, at least from the Soviet point of view, was that it was felt to be capable of standing off at normal combat ranges and resisting 75mm AP fire - not to include the L/70, but the L/48 and whatever else. That was by far the most common threat faced by Soviet armored formations, across the front.

From the Soviet POV there was limited use in uparmouring the Stalin - which they considered - so that it could resist fire from PzV and PzVI. Front-wide, there just weren't that many of those German vehicles. Besides Stalins were either an asset controlled at the Front level, or at the Tank Army or in rare cases Combined Army level; and if the Soviets had anything to say about it, just about the last place they would want to send a Stalin was where a bunch of German panzers had concentrated.

If that sounds like a tank masquerading as an assault gun, look up the production stats for ISU-122 vs Stalin II. They made a lot more of the assault gun, although unlike the Germans their tank factories were not getting bombed by the Americans. Had the Soviets chosen to do so, they could have fielded no SP 122mm, and more Stalin II, at the cost of an overall reduction of heavily-armored vehicles armed with the 122mm cannon.

The Soviet opinion was that a tank with thick armor and a 122mm was useful, but not an end in and of itself.

Sure, in a war you can't manage to deploy your weapons ideally all the time, but the Soviets never were about trying to field the perfect weapon. That was the German approach. The Soviet approach was, make it functional, make it work well within the overall system, and play to the Soviet advantages.

Try and think like a Soviet planner. If the Germans want to pick tank battles and rack up medium kills, big deal. By the time Stalin was fielded there were something like six factories churning out something like an aggregate 2,000 T-34s a month, that's probably half a year's production for the entire German armaments industry.

If the Germans want to waste limited manufacturing capacity producing heavy tanks very good at fighting tank to tank battles, then that's just outstanding from the Soviet point of view. That's that many fewer German tanks overall, and corresponding reduced German flexibility as they have to include big heavy tanks in their inventory, and net result that many more sectors along a 4,000 km. front where the Soviets can concentrate their armor, against no German tanks at all.

And that by 1944 was pretty much a guarantee of a shift of the front 200 or even 300 km. closer to Germany over the course of a month, every time the Soviets launched an offensive. The Germans had absolutely no way to stop it, they had chosen quality over quantity, which as history teaches is not always a bright strategic move when fighting a war outside Europe..

The Stalin's role in the Soviet doctrine was to get the mediums rolling - not by driving through the opposition, but just by blasting it.

That certainly does not fit very closely the western definition of a tank. The western attitude is, the biggest tank on your side needs to be able to fight and defeat all the other side's tanks, otherwise you risk losing the war.

The traditional Soviet response to that is, they won the war, and it was the western tank doctrine that lost.

[ArgusEye]

Bigduke, the remark about the shell dropping out does not come from a report, but from a Romanian manual about maintenance of the IS2 (which is remarkable, because I cannot find Romanian use of the thing anywhere), named

Manualul Tancului JS - 2

cunoaştere şi exploatare

wherein the Romanians state that with Yugoslav ammunition, the gun can be loaded at any angle, but with old style ammunition, the barrel has to be level or lower. That's all the notes I have on it, if you want more info I'd have to re-order the microfilm. It might be easier to get for you, given your greater proximity to the source.

For the rest I find myself agreeing with most of what you say, except for some little points:

They actually considered installing the better-perfoming 100mm gun in the Stalin, and nixed the idea because that would have meant less Stalins with a less-powerful HE shell.

Either Potapov or Ogorsky states that this was due to production problems with the 100mm, necessitating the 122. I also read something else pertaining to the choice, but that's too fuzzy now, I'll have to look it up.

That's that many fewer German tanks overall, and corresponding reduced German flexibility as they have to include big heavy tanks in their inventory, and net result that many more sectors along a 4,000 km. front where the Soviets can concentrate their armor, against no German tanks at all.

True! But bear in mind that the Krauts already had trouble crewing the tanks they had, and fuel was an even bigger problem. A whole bunch of extra tanks standing around on factory parking places would not have done the front any good. Keeping crews alive with more survivable tanks was sensible from the German perspective.

It was as von Rundstedt said: if the Germans didn't win the war by autumn of 1942, there was no more hope of victory.

[Bigduke6]

Fair comment on the 100mm production issue, I had it in my head to mention it but didn't manage to get it to the keyboard.

[rune]

The sources I found state the same thing, they didn't go with th 100mm because of the lack of tubes. Zaloga and Mikhail Baryatinskiy each have a book out on the IS2 and I am waiting to get them. From what I found, they also state the lower rate of fire, but will wait to get my hands on the books for proof.

Rune

[Ziploc]

I found playing the advanced CMBB tutorial the major problem was the relatively low experience ratings of most of the IS-2s which, when contrasted with the German armour, compunded the low ROF. However, I did play it a long time ago which may mean I am completely off the mark!

"It was as von Rundstedt said: if the Germans didn't win the war by autumn of 1942, there was no more hope of victory."

Out of interest ArgusEye why do you think this represents the tipping point for the German war effort?