Andreas

In operations? That can happen in operations if a vehicle platoon commander is knocked out in battle one, then the vehicles will be taken over in battle 2 by the nearest HQ, like support weapons.

German armoured division and infantry division recce had armoured cars in 1941 and 1942. The Kradschuetzenbatallion and the Aufklaerungsabteilung were two different units on paper, but were often merged (in the case of 12.PD in August 1941) because of losses. The below info is based on the TO&E of 13.PD: The Kradschuetzen BN was basically a rifle BN on motorcycles with an added heavy company, giving it some punch and (sort of) AT capability (3 PAK35(mot), 2 IG18(mot) and one pioneer platoon). The Panzer-Aufklaerungs-Abteilung had 10 PSW (2cm KWK), one motorcycle rifle Coy and one heavy Coy (both as in Kradschuetzen BN). The light Recce Column may have had MG equipped PSWs. I think that especially in 1941 HTs maybe a bit of a rare commodity with these two battalions, there were not enough to go round in the Schuetzenregimenter at this stage. In late 1942, the merger of the two units into a single recce detachment was formalised in the Panzertruppen. Infantry divisions were supposed to have armoured cars, but often did not, or those were e.g. French PSW178(f) Panhard or some other captured stuff.

First large scale deceptive "operation" by the Soviets? </font>

Tarquelene, I actually think that your question about how many of these duels actually occurred is exactly the right one to answer. If one looks at the context of the battles, it might be something like this (warning, heavy conjecture to follow): 1. Superior Soviet tank shows up and shoots up German Panzers at long range (1,000m or so), with German Panzer return fire seemingly ineffective (remember, they aim at centre mass, and will only hit vulnerable area by accident, since they do not know it is the vulnerable area). 2. Germans go "oh bugger" and retreat. Try to figure out a way to deal with these troublesome fellows. Now at this stage, a suggestion that the most vulnerable spot is the turret front is going to be received with incredulity - shurely the front is the most thickly armoured part of a tank. It must be elsewhere. Suggesting that you can knock out a tank from the front at longer ranges than you can from the flanks is exactly what gets one branded as "clinically insane" in the absence of firing trials. Apart from that, I agree with Bastables that most complaints and shock stories I have seen regarding the Soviet tanks refer to "heavies", which I take to mean the KV1.

So we will get a 3rd thread in which we are asked whether we are members of the Junge Union? :confused:

I consider an 80% difference 'meaningful', but I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. Apart from that, the test I ran does not tell you anything about hit probability in general, or likelyhood to take out a T34 from the front, just something about likelyhood and relationship of hits in a specific area, with an over-emphasis on the turret hit numbers, because I ignored upper hull hit ricochets (all of them ricocheted). It was aimed at looking at the relationship between area that could be penetrated on the turret-front, and area that could not be penetrated at the turret front. Apart from that it has no meaning, because the setup and the data collection were not trying anything else. Therefore, if you just look at these figures, 50L42 equipped tank effectiveness is artificially boosted. Yet still, the end of the game shows that losses of the 50L42 equipped tank are on the order of 50% higher in a straight-forward duel (assuming that the shocked/gun-damaged tanks are going to be knocked out eventually). I believe that if you did the test with non dug-in T34s, that number would climb, making any non-hull-down duel at at least 750m even more of a losing proposition for the German armour force overall, a point which you also have neatly ignored. Which is in line with the doctrinal documents you like to toss about. Just for different reasons. 1. Your idea that the 50L42 equipped panzers can just stand up to the T34 at range without using some form of tactics is clearly not born out by these duels. And this is with the IIIH, with the IIIG or IVD it is not even a contest at 750m, the T34s win any time in a straight shoot-out. 2. Have you read up on the sPzB41 yet, or are you willing to tell me where you have that idea from that it was a common gun in 1941, and why it would not penetrate the T34?

Sorry Jason, but first I never said anything about the 38(t). Secondly, your ignorance of TO&Es is showing again (Remember the Firefly discussion? I do.) There were not many of the sPzB41 going around, and according to Etterlin they were initially issued to infantry and pioneer battalions (by late 1942 there were small numbers of them in PzGren regiments), so maybe you are just not looking at the right AARs? Now, assembling a PAK front out of 50L60 ATGs seems quite sensible to me, since it can actually deal with the T34 to a reasonable distance, and did so historically. But nice try to throw out the discussion, which after all is about the 50L42. Guderian - well, maybe a liar, maybe not. But certainly in his memoirs he is more likely to put his defeat down to Soviet supertanks than to be surprised by Katukov's quite well-lead attack. He is hardly going to write - '...and I did not get anywhere at Tula because Katukov outsoldiered me, now is he'? At least that is a suspicion I would have, even if it ran counter to any thesis that 'the side with the better tanks lost'. Other posters may disagree. Finally - do I think it is correct? I don't know. Could be, could not be, I am no expert. I just enjoy demolishing your hyperbolic claims (10% ricochet; laser-range finders, horizontal equals lateral dispersion etc), to be quite honest. Seems high to me, then again, I have seen a statement by a German officer dismissing the T34 early on, saying his division never developed any respect for it, since they handled it roughly on the first encounter (IIRC that was in Glantz 'Early period of war' proceedings).

By the way, I am not defending any model, and neither am I clutching at straws. Your reaction to a serious question shows that you do not seem to trust your model very much either. Your claim of 'only 10% deflections' looks like there was a bit of hype going on now, after some testing. You still have not addressed the matter of lateral vs. horizontal dispersion to any satisfaction, beyond rambling on about absent laser range finders, which is really not particularly relevant. Your impression of the sPzB41 seems to be that it was a pointless weapon. Again, one expert on German guns begs to differ. Asking for combat reports of the gun is a bit disingenous, if you think about the numbers in which it was fielded. This is not saying that something may not be wrong with the BFC model. But equally, your overhyped claims with no basis are also wrong, and the real difference between what you see in the game, and the numbers you suggest appears not to be that great. And it may well be explained by aiming and low horizontal dispersion to some degree, because even in the absence of laser range finders, German tankers were taught to aim. Surprisingly enough.

Gpig, veyr glad to hear you enjoy it. And thanks for the feedback! I look forward to the review.

Well, just ran the 750m tests 8 more times. Totals now come to, including the previous five runs: Penetrations 63% Partial penetrations 9% Ricochets 18% Gun hits 10% Total T34 killed now 28 Total PIII killed now 36 (add to this a few shocked and one immobilised) 2-3 turns and it is all over. This is certainly affected by the fact that the T34s are dug in, therefore hull hits are much less likely.

My mother always said "Drink your moo juice, and if you're not willing to perform enough tests to eliminate reasonable doubts about sample sizes, don't give any figures at all, sweetie." </font>

No, it is not perfect, but as you well know, that is not the issue, unless you want to pretend that your suggested model makes it *perfect*. Regarding the sPzB41, which you mistakenly refer to as 28 PAK, Etterlin gives it a penetration of 52mm @ 60° @457m. Sounds like it should get through curved 45mm at 500m with little problem to me. CMBB does disagree with this value though, and has a lot lower penetration. Etterlin's judgement is 'at the time of introduction 1941 a splendid (ausgezeichnete) gun'. I leave it up to you to interpret this judgement. I look forward to your creative efforts. I think I have shown or at least given a good indication that your 'tiny number deflection' 10% claims are wrong at the range where it matters. Regarding 'only hits that are already away', again, you are messing up lateral and horizontal dispersion. IIMU that lateral dispersion at this range does not matter. You will hit something. Horizontal dispersion does matter. Now, I am still at a loss why you find it so difficult to accept that German gunners will aim at a point that they can penetrate, instead of aiming at a point that they can not penetrate. Please elucidate. Edit: because I got my numbers wrong on the deflections. [ January 31, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Err, nice bit of testing, and I just love the precision in the conclusions. I just ran the following tests, each with 6 III 50L42 facing 6 T34obr40 in shooting ranges, head-on. Range: 740-750m (5 tests) 520m (1 test) 1020m (1 test) Results: 740-750m Turret penetration ~60% Ricochet ~21% Partial penetration ~10% Gun hits ~10% After max 3 turns, the duels were over. Total results (kills for 4 tests only): 9 III dead, 2 III shocked, 8 T34 dead 1020m Penetration 27% Ricochet 13% Partial penetrations 53% Gun hits 7% 3 turns, 4 PIII, 2 T34 dead 520m Penetrations 84% Ricochets 11% Partial 5% Gun 0 2 PIII and 4 T34 killed, 2 turns. Interestingly, first round shots rarely hit for the PIII at any range. From the second volley onwards, hits were following the general pattern. This to me indicates that aiming may indeed be simulated to some degree. I have all three files, interested parties can DL them here: 50l42 test Happy testing. I am still waiting for Jason to answer the question by the way. Does his model take horizontal dispersion into account? If not, instead of droning on about how I am clutching at straws, by how much would it increase the penetratable area? Edit: T34s dug in, to prevent them from bugging out and preserve range integrity. This of course leads to more turret hits than you would otherwise get. Also, I ignored the 50L60 in testing. The 50L60 has no trouble getting through the T34 and is not the issue here. [ January 31, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

No you did not get my point. Thanks for making that clear.

For all your verbosity, you did not get my point. Reread my post before making an ass of yourself.

Jason: With regard to the above, and Andreas' post above (I'm wondering if I just missed the point of A's post): What was the T-34's turret orientation in your tests? If the T-34 is directly facing your test-guns then you might - should - be seeing far more penetrations than you would in "real life." I think I'll try some 37 and 50mm guns vrs. "head on" T-34 turrets and slightly angled ones... </font>

Jason, your test is very interesting, yet it still does not seem to take account of what I understand (following Rexford's postings on this matter) about hit chances. Is it correct to say that you assume any hit should have an equal chance to hit any area that presents itself (within the confines of the BFC model)? I.e. if you only have the tank turret visible, any hit will have an equal chance to hit any point on the turret centre, or the turret edge? If that is the case, then it appears to me you ignore aiming. ISTR a statement by Rexford that the majority of hits would be within a very narrow spread left-right, because of the training to aim for centre mass. Since the vulnerable area is centre mass, a high hit percentage amongst frontal turret hits going into it would be a logical conclusion, it seems to me. Note, I am not even talking about aiming for weak-point/area hits here. That would exacerbate the effect (especially with such a large weak point/area), and I am not sure whether CMBB does model this 'under the hood'.

QBs are simulating tactical battles. On the tactical level, the Germans counter-attacked almost right up to the end of the war. In Autumn 43 there were also operational level counter-attacks around Zhitomir, involving Heer and SS Panzerdivisionen.

Don't you think it is a bit much to expect BFC to pay to get you a DSL connection?

Glenn, check Der Kessel in my sig, for a series of battles we called Byte Battles, which are about the size (or slightly above) you are looking for.

Non sequitur. Part of your force can just have moved in, those could be positions that are not supposed to hold out long, the time investment in getting the trenches in was so high that there was not enough time for foxholes, etc.pp.

Yeah sure, as if during Beta-testing we did not crawl all through (bad pun intended) those trenches, trying to break them... I suggest a look at e.g. TM30-430 for what a decent Soviet trench (the manual version) should look like. The Sharp volumes have the info too I believe. These are all-singing, all-dancing trenches with overhead cover and, err, stuff. Lots of it.

Nice post Grisha

No surprise - I am always right

Why do you pick Bastables then?