Roksovkiy

In a recent university talk, David Glantz said the total russian military casualty numbers are still unknown with many archives closed. He said a minimum of 14.5 million military casualties, however the number is constantly increasing with new releases and discoveries from the archives. He said Krivosheevs numbers are not complete and do not include casualties from mars and many other operations. A Russian historical firm named SEARCH who toured the battlefield and and sifted through soviet documents, condemn Krivosheevs numbers as a relic from soviet secrecy. Glantz gives the total German losses from (1941-1944 december) on the eastern front as 2,742,209 million.

The germans could have achieved a victory in the south. The IISS Panzer Korps suffered small tank losses and even had more tanks available after prokhorovka. The soviets had no reserves left in the south after, without shifting from other fronts. The 5th Guards tank army WAS the Steppe fronts armoured reserve and it was smashed on the 12th. Army Group South's still had three panzer divisions in reserve that could have finised off the Fifth Guards Tank Army and the First Tank Army as Manstein wanted it would have had the same effect. Kursk in the south was actually very expensive for the Soviets

The Russian had bulit up a tank park prior to Kursk. The Germans could have destroyed every soviet tank around Kursk and within a month 2000 new tanks would be back at the front.

No, numbers had no effect whatsoever on the Germans. It was the brilliant soviet operational skill that enabled them to win battles after losing 6 times as many casualties than the Germans in 1943.

Resources had a decisive influence on the outcome and in the end the massive difference in resources was greater than the differences in efficiency. The soviet odds were much greater than 4:1 in weapons fielded for. The idea that soviet strategic/operational skill was used to negate German tactical skill from 1943 onwards is an old myth perpetuated by so called “Soviet Experts”.

The Panther - kubinka story has been adapted and changed in various books since the event. The only fact that remains is K.E.Voroshilov nearly having is head blown of with the muzzlebrake accident. It’s amusing how events change over the years to glorify what happened. The front glacis-engine out the back, makes a much better story that the measly 40mm side turret.

If the new data by rexford on armor is being used in CMBB, then tanks using cast armor should not get 100% quality ratings, unlike CMBO where the M-26 pershing with it’s cast glacis and turret armor having a 100% quality. The panther rating is severe after reading that it used RHA armor and was over-armored from the spec sheets according to UK and US test data rating the glacis as 85mm, compared to soviet vehicles produced with armor under the spec sheet measurements. Rexfords book has test results of high hardness flawed cast armor on the latest T-34/85s and IS-2's recorded by the U.S after the battle of Berlin. With this type of under spec high–hardness cast armor even a 60-70% armor quality would be better than historical.

Does the Armor model differentiate between cast armor and rolled homogenous armor. Rexford said good cast armor is 10-15% less resistant than RHA armor. Most Allied tanks used cast armor and it is not reflected in game armor ratings, without even taking bad armor into consideration. The M-26 pershing used a cast armour glacis and turret, yet it still gets 100% armor quality. It should get 90% quality at best. The Tiger II made of rolled homogenous armor, with no hard evidence of bad quality armor, is given less resistence in the game than if it was made of cast armor.

The Limeys must be up there for the ugliest WW1- era design tanks of the war. From the matilda, churchill, cromwell to the firefly. Awful tanks in combat as well as looks.

Rexfords new book has given the King Tiger's side plates better quality than US standard 240BHN. Up to 10% better. The new beta OOB's in SPWAWv7 is based on rexfords new book. All armor values are treated as their equivalent to US 240BHN. The King tiger side hull is rated as 88mm RHA armor.

Can the CM team cite some of the obscure sources used to justify the King Tiger having 90% side armor quality. Or was it included for gameplay concerns. Not one ounce of evidence has been quoted as to why this has been done. All ‘known’ evidence of failed 57mm and bazooka hits recorded in combat reports suggest the side hull was either over-armoured or of 100% armor quality. I’d also like to know what perplexing sources were used to model the accuracy of the 88mm guns at below 1km ranges. Is it not plausible that the game is geared towards the US market.

Where in CMBO is the King Tiger's armor rated at 90%. In the 1.12 patch its armor is rated at 100%. The English rated the side armor of the King Tiger tested at the Aberdeen proving grounds as equivalent to 88mm US 240BHN plate, without including the slope. The armor with the 25 degree slope was rated at 98mm resistance. The rear hull's 80mm with the 30 degree slope was rated as equivalent to 100mm US 240BHN. There was no mention of inferior quality armor for the side hull plates. Bazooka and PIAT tests failed to penetrate the rear and upper hull side plates.

Posted by Germanboy You are of course right regarding the validity of Jary's account, and it should also be remembered that 43rd Wessex was one of the best infantry divisions in the 2nd Army Well according to Saunders book ‘Hill 112: Battles of the Odon-1944’, the Wessex suffered severe losses against the 9th and 10th SS divisions. 43rd Wessex Division lost more than 2,000 men in the first 36 hours of operation JUPITER to regain Hill 112. The Odon River was dammed with corpses. Extensive replacements managed to bring the Wessex back up strength after 2 weeks. Jary seems to have ignored this experience of German troops.

So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run. A superb and accurate description of yourself, affix the word 'wanker' and 'biased' at the end and it would have been perfect. Try and read my original post first, then if you can, how it relates to your post. If you can manage that then there is nothing more to say.

I originally said the western allies were fighting “predominantly the dregs of the German army”. Of course there was a small number of good divisions left. 1st SS was still of a high quality and 12 SS was motivated and fanatical, but compared to the total army strength in the west, they accounted for less than 10%. The majority of divisions in the west were of markedly poor quality.

You should pick up a history book and also learn reading English, not just typing it. Try reading US and german sources besides your british tailored history books. You may then gain a better understanding of how poorly your beloved british army performed in WW2. What is wrong with a bias against Nazis BTW? Nothing if you want to play a UK fantasy game. Most normal people like historical accuracy and that requires one to be impartial and non-biased.

By June 1944 and onwards, the allies were predominantly fighting the dregs of the German army. The personal accounts sound a lot like they were based on fighting volksturm units and dare I say it ‘biased’ on a hatred of the Nazis.

Like some fellow said early 'Your taking Jason C, too seriously'. He is voicing his opinions based on speculation using a ‘play on numbers’, not hard evidence. All primary evidence indicates the long-range accuracy of the 88L56 and 88L79 are under-modelled in the game compared to reality.

Jason C about those average tank v tank ratios that your say is around 2.5:1. You seem to completely ignore the actual German tank losses DUE to enemy tank fire only, which is low at around 16,000. For the total of the war around 49,000 German tanks and spg were built. Soviets are credited with 12,500 German tank kills and allies 3,500 tanks according to the German loss records. These losses are the result tank losses to enemy tanks ONLY. The rest of the 33,000 tanks and SPG Germany made are credited as being lost due to artillery, infantry, breakdown, abandoned from air attack, anti tank guns and other enemy action. None of these 33,000 tanks are cited as being lost to enemy tank action, In any form at all. Soviet loss records credit just over 40,000 tanks out of 100,000+ that were made as being destroyed due to German tank fire, all other losses of tanks recorded by enemy artillery, infantry, ATG etc. German tanks kill ratios were an average of 4:1 for the war against Russia in tanks v tank combat. The numbers do add up, you seems to just take all causes of losses and use production figures which is correct for all causes but not tank v tank kill ratios.

I thought this Tiger II was penetrated from the front. It Turns out to be the front lamp, lol. I was surprised that the Russians measured the King Tiger they tested on Valera's site with a 190mm fron turret instead of the 180mm that is normally used. Seems like the over-armoring Rexford talks about.

I'd like to see the photo of that Tiger II. US infanrty men reported they had trouble knocking out the Panther with a Panerfaust 60 from the front glacis, and would always try side or turret shots. The only certainty they said was a panzer IV from the front.

Actually, there is documented evidence for frontal penetration of Tiger 2s. Actually there is no evidence. No Tiger II was penetrated on front glacis during battle in WW2. And the reference on Valera's Russian military zone Dubious. Hundreds of hits from point blank range, until the armor as lost its resitance. It was also done using post war ammo.

The allied tungsten ammo is over-rated. In theory the 76mm hvap could have penetrated the front of a Tiger I but in practise the ammo shattered. Same with 17lb APDS ammo could not in practise penetrate a king tiger glacis. Using WW2 penentration stats only causes a confilet between theory and practise. The game is based more on theory than ptractise.

The average for all German tanks may have been 2.5:1 for the entire war, but the average for the Tiger tank was much higher. The Tiger I specifically did have an average kill ratio of 10:1. The daily tank losses and CONFIRMED enemy tank kills for SS and army Tiger Abteilungs show this ratio on microfilm at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. As those reports were intended to allow the corps commander to assess the combat strength, and effectiveness of his divisions they are considered accurate and thorough primary evidence to the US army post war.

Tanks kills were always confirmed when the situation allowed. During July 12th prokhorovka the Leibstandarte division alone claimed 192 Soviet tanks destoyed. II SS Panzer Korps General Paul Hausser thought this was scarcely credible until he visited the battlefield and walked around the hulks, each was numbered in white chalk to confirm the kills. This was only in the Leibstandarte sector during Prokorovka. Leibstandarte combat report 12 July losses: Total lossed: 18 Tanks Repairable: 14 Tanks Unrecoverable 4 Tanks Romitrov’s own admission of his tank losses tally with German figures, his tank charge was a slaughter.