Bigduke6

Rune, I thought you were finished with this thread last exchange, when you wrote it was your last message. I disagree strongly with your concept of "definitive proof". I am now confident that you see "definitive proof" for the purposes of this discussion as numerical weapons performance data produced by a testing team on a firing range. You do not as nearly as I can tell accept historical accounts by combat participants as valid grounds for tweaking an combat simulation engine. You see such accounts as, in your words, "general comments without supporting evidence." If you create a computer simulation of East Front combat dismissing recollections of those participants as "general comments without supporting evidence," then in my view you undermine the simulation's claim to historical fidelity. I am not surprised you think the percentage is a big deal and I do not. As I pointed out, there is a basic difference between your approach and my approach to this. I focus on results and you focus on numbers and process. I agree, too bad CMBB did not allow aimed shots. You and I agree (you tacitly) that the 76.2mm underperforms in the engine to some extent. We agree we really don't know how much, but at least to the extent that the engine ought to allow the gun to defeat 80mm armor at close ranges, and it doesn't. So frankly our positions aren't hugely apart. Second to finally, I didn't mean to insult you and I apologize for that. Please understand that what you consider "general comments without supporting evidence," I consider the starting and ending point for what happened on an East Front battlefield. In my opinion, primary sources are definitive, and always more valid for figuring out what happened in combat, than data generated in a controlled environment on a firing range. After all, CM is supposed to replicate combat, not firing ranges. Besides, the way I see it, it is almost as easy to poke holes in firing range data, as it is to poke a hole in a first-hand account. Finally my best wishes on your upcoming soccer play-offs. I am a Dynamo Kyiv enthusiast myself. Perhaps you have heard of Valery Lobanovsky? [ April 28, 2005, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

Rune, It appears we can lay this one to rest in general agreement, at least on the big stuff. Personally I am not a numbers/process kind of guy. I am a results kind of guy. If the game were to reproduce the result that 76.2mm AP reliably penetrates German 82mm side armor at close combat ranges, I would be as happy as a swine in odure. You and I seem to agree the engine doesn't really replicate that. Maybe you will accuse me of assuming again, but your last post seems pretty clear to me. I could care less whether some one maths out that difference and determines the Soviet 76.2 underperforms by 5 per cent or 15 per cent or 50 per cent. All I want is to be able to bust the side of Tiger if can work a T-34/76 to somewhere below 300 meters. And I am not alone. If you could wave a magic wand and change the engine with a 3 or 0.3 per cent "bump" to the gun, and that would do the job against Tiger sides, then I would shut up. You and I clearly also agree that change, though theoretically desirable, isn't going to happen in CMBB. We aren't going to agree about Stugs apparently. Well I can live with that. I am a bit sorry you never answered my questions about why you think the game gives such wierd, and even deteriorating performance to the 76.2mm round, and why the game never takes into account the fact the Soviets fielded a better round for the weapon in 1944. If you find out, I really am curious. I am also moderately disturbed that you continue to discount, ok, seem to me to discount, the memoirs of Soviet armored commanders. By this I mean that I have the impression that if you are presented with a choice between weapons test data and recollections of combat veterans, you will select weapons test data as the better base for building a computer model of WW2 armored combat. I can see how it would be easier. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but if you keep to that attitude and you talk the design team to your way of thinking CMX, may well repeat wholly preventable glitches like the great "Underpowered Soviet AT weapons debate". That's the whole point to this exchange, really. During playtesting frontally-invulnerable Stugs should have been caught. Yes it's awfully easy for me to make that statement. I will be optimistic. If the net result of all this is to get more of CMX's designers to read Rokkosovsky and Konev (which are in English), I'll count all this typing as time well spent. In any case, you and I both know when the next version of the game comes out, I am going to buy it. P.S. - Thanks for the post from the Soviet Artillery Journal. Interestingly, if you look in this forum under the thread "How to Attack a Tiger I", you will find I translated about half of what appears to be a very similar text for forum readers about a month ago. Dorosh found the leaflet and posted the link. Some of the text appears to match word for word. What I translated came from a leaflet the Soviets handed out to grunt-level troops.

Panzer, Oh sure, that "Ferdinand" in the report could well have been an Elefant, Nashorn, etc. Although in that case, you have a situation where a lightly-armored tank destroyer at the front end of a German attack drives up on a concealed ZiS-3 position - and Germans didn't lead attacks with thin-skinned tank destroyers. But sure, no way you can say that account is conclusive. From what I can tell "Ferdinand" to some extent was Red Army slang for "Mucking Great Assault Gun". It's easy to find problems with battlefield accounts, they are by their very nature limited. That's why I keep coming back to commander accounts. They were the guys with the information, they were the ones making the battlefield decisions.

I basically agree with Panzer's review of the sources/data/sites. If the 76.2AP reliably penetrated the side of Tiger at say 250-300m., I would say that's pretty much in keeping with what I have read. The Red armor commanders seem to agree - again from what I can tell - you had to get close to the side of a Tiger to kill it, but it wasn't point blank, and if you got close you definately could kill it. So if the CMBB 76.2 was about 10 per cent better, we wouldn't even be having this arguement...

Rune, 1. I don't know anything about Soviets low-balling the 76.2mm performance on paper to get the 85mm faster, so no comment there. 2. For Brinnel data see below. 3. I don't have any information about the Americans or Brits lying in their tests, no comment there. 4. See below for a first-hand account of a ZiS-3 killing a Ferdinand with a flank shot. I concede Tiger side armor was probably about 5 per cent more effective than Ferdinand side armor. However, I have produced a first-hand example of German 80mm armor overcome by the Soviet 76.2mm AP at close range. You (or any one else, as far as I know) have yet to introduce an example of the German 80mm armor defeating it. 5. You and I are at loggerheads on StuermGeschuetz. If JasonC's citations of memoirs of German StuG gunners themselves considering themselves vulnerable to the Soviet 76.2, I certainly can't do better than that. 6. Sorry about the lack of clarity. I am talking about the L/41 gun. 7. I suggest you read that site more closely. There is nothing to indicate the 1944-era BR-354B is worse than the BR-350B. Indeed, it is silly to assume so. Logically the Soviets improved the round - why introduce a lower-performing munition in 1944? The whole crux of my arguement is that the Soviets progressively improved their ammo, but CMBB doesn't reflect that. You have yet to explain to me why, although the Soviets clearly introduced an improved round in 1944, the game engine does not reflect that change. You also have yet to explain to me why the game engine makes the performance of the 76.2mm round best in 1941. worst in 1942, and second-worst in 1943. I submit you aren't doing so, because you can't. I challenge you to prove me wrong. 8. Am I correct in concluding you believe the game engine and its incorporation of the key functional data of the Soviet 76.2mm AP round - i.e. velocity, weight, shell material, etc etc - is correct? 9. "I read accounts from both sides, read test firing reports, read everything I can find. The bottom line is I have NO definite proof that 15% undervalued is close. We have no idea on what the ammo problems effects were. We have no idea of the test plate, we have no idea on too much to base an opinion one way or another." Yesterday I posted the Russian Library site which has, in full text, the memoirs of most of the Soviet armor commanders. Have you looked at it? Rune, don't get me wrong. No one including you and me is responsible to know everything about everything. I think CMBB is the very best wargame ever made, and I have been playing wargames for close to 30 years. You shouldn't take this as a general attack on CMBB. Our basic disconnect is I am coming at this issue - the CMBB depiction of Soviet AP weapons close to the edge of their envelope - from combat commander accounts. I have an advantage in that the accounts are almost without exception only in Russian. Fortunately I read Russian. You apparently are using a mathematical approach. From what I can tell you believe the way to determine how Soviet AP weapons performed on East Front battlefields is to figure the weight of the shell, its velocity, the thickness of the armor attacked etc. etc. don't forget the fudge factor, and if your engine is sophisticated enough you can model battlefield results. My objection is that when battlefield accounts contradict the results produced by your mathematical model, you reject them outright. I submit that guys like Rotmistrov, Katukov, Batov, etc. knew better how the Soviet 76.mm gun performed an East Front battlefield, than you and Charles. They were there, you were not. If your model doesn't perform the way they said there is, with my great respect, a problem with your model. It may not be big and it may not be crippling, but it exists. The Soviet armor commanders are unanimous: the 76.2 was a great gun that could defeat German panzers at normal combat ranges until TigerI rolled down the pike, and then T-34s had to get close and on the flank to hurt the Tiger. Here is some more background. I am intentionally keeping the number of sites low. 1. Memoirs by Vasily Grabin, the guy who designed most of the Soviet AT guns including all marks of the 76.2. Good for understanding the genral performance the Soviets were looking for. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/grabin/15.html 2. An article in Voenna-Technichesky Zhurnal (Military-Technical magazine) – “T-34 denied Tiger/Panther advantages at close range" by I. Shmeleva Issue Number 11-12 1998 http://www.redtanks.bos.ru/t3476.htm 3. Recollections of Genrikh Fenras, ZiS-3 gunner –knocks out Ferdinand tank destroyer with single point-blank flank shot. http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/fernas/fernas_r.html 4. You doubtless know this English-language site. The sources cited concerning the 76.2mm gun are the Russian Military Zone, Zaloga’s Red Army Handbook, Zaloga’s T-34/76 Medium Tank, and Soviet Guns 1920 – 1945. The pop-ups are a big pain. You are warned. a. Essay on Soviet mathematical modeling, problems in predicting penetration by 76.2mm rounds, and a bit on how hard Soviet cast armor was: http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet.html b. Info on Soviet testing standards when computing armor-piercing capacity. Named sources are Robert Livingston and raw data from Allied tests: http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet_hardness_gun.html c. Info on Soviet vehicle armor, just to prove to you I didn't make up my claim about hard Soviet cast armor: http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet_hardness_veh.html [ April 27, 2005, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

Last post for today: 76.3mm F-34 T-34 Type 1941 76,2mm ZIS-5 КV-1 76,2mm F-34, Т-34 Type 1942 ZIS-5, КV-1S

Panzer76, Basically you've got the picture. ZiS-3 was one of many versions of the 76.2mm gun. For practical purposes it was the same as the tank gun. From my point of view the thing to remember is that the Soviets busily made rounds for this gun all through the war, and they kept improving it. On the lower penetration numbers for the later periods, most of what I have read explains that on grounds the Soviets tested the '41 round, but after that they used formulae to figure penetration, and they low-balled the numbers a bit to CYA, and also maybe because the parameters they stuck into the formula were a little more rigorous than real life. Not saying that was the fact, just that's what I've read on the "Why is it the numbers for the 76.2mm get worse over time?" mystery. This is why I keep coming back to documented battlefield performance as the determinant I like. With all those rounds, studies, studies of studies, and float factors like test metal hardness etc, it becomes pretty impossible pretty quick to answer the question "So, just how good was this round from a mathematical point of view?" What we can do is look at historical performance as recorded by battlefield participants - that's relatively simple and in general from what I can see the actual combatants didn't lie. If a weapon sucked, they said so, and if it worked, they said that too.

Rune, What on earth would you consider acceptable evidence? I point out the practical absence of historical battlefield accounts verifying the 76.2 round was uselss against the side of TigerI. As nearly as I can tell you see that as irrelevant. I show you and any one else who cares to look the very page of Russian Battlefield site that says "Russian guns are better than these numbers, don't compare them to German based on these numbers." You tell me you know Valera better than I do. I say "CMBB makes the 76.2mm round worse in 1942 than in 1941". You say you will check. I say "CMBB doesn't improve the performance of the 76.2mm round after 1943, the Soviets came out with an improved round in 1944. From what I can tell, you just ignore me. I say "A Stug frontally invulnerable to the ZiS-3 is silly." You say "Well, whatever happened happened in battles, we'll never know." I say "Read the Soviet armored commanders, get some perspective, listen to the other side. These are first-hand accounts from the field commanders. They thought 76.2 could deal with Tiger sides." You ignore my suggestion. Then you tell to come up with some "real proof" if I want to convince you. Be reasonable. The Soviets clearly believed the 76.2 gun was capable of things it cannot really manage in CMBB. You seem like a smart guy, do you really think the Soviets would get something like that wrong, after the war was over? I mean, they are happy as clams in post-war accounts to point out German superiority in training and tank gunnery. Why do Soviet post-war accounts - pretty much unanimously - say "To take on the Tigers we had to drive our T-34s up close, and get on the flank".? Thanks for setting me straight on the physics engine. Since you seem to know the CMBB physics engine well, could you please explain to me how it managed to model the AP performance of the Soviet 76.2mm gun accurately (as you maintain) and at the same time model the AP performance of the Soviet 85mm gun somewhat inaccurately? (As you mention may be the case.) [ April 26, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

Panzer76, Glad to oblige. That is "UBR-354M". The UBR stands for "Unitarniy broniboiniy" meaning "single piece armour piercing". I am not positive what the M stands for but usually M means "modernizirnovanniy", meaning modernized. The suffixes A and B are model numbers, i.e., the A version came out before the B version. SP means "Sploshnoi", or solid, like an ATR rifle slug. I didn't know the Soviets made a 76.2mm solid round. So the answer to your question is "No, that certainly is a different round - probably. How different, probably, would be the difference between the B version of the 1944 round, and the modernized version of the 1944 round. Don't forget the Soviets modernized after the war. Also don't forget more than one factory produced shells. But bottom line, not the same. To an extent we don't know. Clearly the round you are talking about came out in 1944 at least, and maybe even later. It is the follow-on to the BR-350 series. I too haven't been able to find any detailed info on how well this 1944 shell series performed. But it is logical that it would perform better than the earlier versions.

Panzer 76, My point throughout is that the numbers of those tables are low if you just stick them into the CMBB engine. If you don't take into account how Soviets figured armor penetration predictability, and how it was different from western armies, the engine is going to produce wierd results - and always in favour of the Germans. The thing driving the modeling should not be numbers on a table, but battlefield results. The game should replicate the battlefield results. The best source of how good or bad Russian weapons were is the Russians themselves. Not Germans testing Russian weapons, not Americans testing German versions of the Russian weapons. By that I don't mean simply finding penetration tables and transposing them. I mean understanding how the weapon performed, based on how the people using the weapon saw it it perform. That's what the engine should replicate. So once again, where are the historical accounts of Soviet 76.2mm AP outright unable to penetrate the side of TigerI? Where are the historical accounts of Soviet 76.2mm AP outright unable to penetrate the front of Stuermgeschuetz?

Rune, I think it is not the subject that is closed but, with respect, your mind. I linked you to the Russian battlefield site not because it is the main source of my opinion, but because even if you can't read Russian (and again, I apologize if you can) there are penetration tables with numbers in them on that site your computer should be able to read. My hope was that you would see there really are data out there you are not considering, and that I am not just inventing evidence. Lots of people on this forum know the Russian battlefield site, so I was hoping that would give my point of view more credibility. My point is, the Russian-language side of that site is factors larger than the English-language side, and far more detailed. Since Russian Battlefield doesn't impress you, here is another Russian-language site on WW2 armor penetration: http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/saurung.html Note that at the top it says: "Russian penetration numbers are understated by 10 - 15 per cent". Now to your questions. Yes I am aware Soviet AP ammo had reliability problems in the 41-42 period. I also know the munition improved over time, and that CMBB does not account for that improval. Indeed, in general over time in CMBB the 76.2mm round gets worse. Look it up. In CMBB, the 1941 Soviet 76.2mm AP round actually gets worse in 1942. Its penetration ability is best in 1941. It improves slightly in 1943, but never reaches the capability of the 1941 round. The round never improves after 1943 - in CMBB I mean. Explain that to me, if you can. How is it that the main Soviet AP round of the war is, according to CMBB, most effective at the start of the war? Why does it get worse during 1942, improves slightly in 1943, and after not improve a bit? The last is especially mystifying to me - Soviet arms manufacturing got pretty efficient during the latter stages of the war, and the Soviets introduced an improved 76.2mm AP round in 1944. Yes I am aware Soviets used a formula to determine a portion of their penetration estimates. I sent the link for it to you, remember? Now I would like to ask you some questions. Are you aware (1) the Soviets thought their cast armor was at least as good as German rolled plate, and CMBB doesn't seem to account for that and (2) There is evidence Soviet plate used in actual testing was if anything a bit harder than German plate? If you knew that, where did you learn it? Yes I am aware Valera worked on CMBB. I know Valera, somewhat. If you think I am just making all this up, then write Valera and ask him. Further, I know and Valera knows that the Russian battlefield site points out in several places in big letters: Don't compare Russian to German penetration tables, they are apples and oranges. Russian numbers are understated in comparison to German numbers. I don't think you are aware of this, or if you are I think you are ignoring this important qualification. I say this because the second or third link I posted has that very warning in bold type at the top of the page. Are you aware the Soviet definition of penetration was more rigorous than the German definition? This obviously has a direct bearing on where the cut-off is between a round getting through the armor and not? CMBB clearly does not take this into account either. Finally, the memoirs of all the leading Soviet armored commanders (that I have read anyway) describe the 76.2mm gun and the T-34 tank as effective against pretty much everything the Germans could throw at it, except the TigerI. Then T-34/76 had to get to close range and the flank. Here is the site: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/index.html Here is an abbreviated list of Soviet armor commanders familiar with the T-34/76, i.e., they had the vehicles in their direct command: Bagramian, Babadzhian, Baklanov, Batov, Vorozheykin, Dragunsky, Zaitsev, Ivanovsky, Katiukov (my personal favorite) Leliushenko, Malinovsky, Moskalenko, Popel. There's plenty more. I have read about half of these guys. How many of these memoirs have you read? I defy you to find even one Soviet commander saying TigerI was absolutely impenetrable to T-34/76, or that Stuermgeschuetz was frontally impenetrable to T-34/76. I further defy you to come up with a combat account of a Stuermgeschuetz demonstating frontal invulnerability to the Soviet 76.2mm AP round, in any language. Pointing out Soviet 76.2 assault gun crews were trained to fire at Tiger sprockets at close range is immaterial to a discussion about how well or poorly CMBB depicts Russian AP weapons. Of course they aimed at the sprockets. That's a higher-payoff shot than the frontal armor, for heaven's sake. Of course they trained for close-range shots. That's the Soviet way of doing business.

Rune, My arguements are based on Russian-language Soviet army sources, and memoirs of Red Army armor commanders. That's primary sources. You want to read about the 76.2mm cannon: http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/f34_r.html http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/zis5_r.html http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/s54_r.html As another example go here for the 85mm cannon: http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/d5_r.html Go here to learn (in a short form) why straight numerical comparisons of German and Soviet armor-piercing tables is apples and oranges: http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_5_r.html Go here to learn (in long form, but it's in English) the formulae used by Red Army engineers to calculate penetration: http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1_r.html I could go on, there is a ton of information out there on the web, never mind in libraries and archives. It's not like World War Two is a forbidden subject in the former Soviet Union. If you can't read Russian, and have no access to Russian-language primary sources, you are depending on secondary sources. Ask yourself, how reliable can your understanding of Red Army weapons be? How trustworthy would you think my statements about German weapons would be, if I only cited Russian-language literature? It seems to me that what you and some other people on this thread are doing is willfully ignoring what the Soviets said about their own weapons. The historical record shows the Soviets thought their AP weapons were somewhat better than CMBB makes them out to be. They should be grateful they were able to fight Germans with real weapons, and not CMBB ones.

JackC, Yes I did tests. Lots of them. I have all the patches. What's more, I read Russian and German and nowhere, I repeat nowhere, have I found historical evidence to show the Soviet 76.2mm was as weak as it is in CMBB. I am not saying there is absolutely no chance of a penetration at the engagements and ranges I am talking about. Of course there is. CMBB builds in variablity, and that variablity allows the Soviet 76.2mm gun to penetrate, at medium ranges and lower, the side of Tiger I, and the front of Stuermgeschuetz on rare occasions. Rare occasions is not what happened in real life. In real life that weapon gave reliable penetration and destruction at those ranges and aspects. The lower the range, the higher chance of a kill. Bagramian ordered the biggest tank charge in history at Kursk on grounds the Soviet 76.2mm gun could absolutely reliably penetrate the sides of Tiger I at ranges of 300mm or less. JasonC has demonstrated very well, I think, that had real-life Kursk been fought in CMBB, every one in Russia would be speaking German, as the Germans would have annihilated 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk. A 25-1 exchange rate is pretty piss-poor - and remember JasonC modeled that with every T-34 opening fire first, at the side of the Tiger, at close range. 85mm is the same deal. In real life it was pretty durn effective out to a klick against TigerI and Panther. In CMBB you better be at 500m. and lower. CMBB - which remains a terrific game and I really enjoy it - also fails to model armor weakening under cumulative hits. What's more it makes weaker morale crews automatically avoid combat with tougher tanks, LOS is a lot longer than on most battlefields (smoke, fog, dust), and the engine distributes hits randomly, when historically what Allied tankers did when up against a Tiger or a Panther was to fire like crazy at the running gear, which would decrease the overall chance of a hit somewhat, but increase the chance of the hit doing something. Add into this a rough 10 - 15 weaker performance by Soviet rounds in CMBB, than in real life, and you get a game stacked against the side using massed fires, hoping for immobility hits, and trying to engage at close range. The game is stacked in favor, more than in real life, of the side preferring stand-off tactics and hopefully one-to-one engagements. As a result of this slant, CMBB German Tigers, Panthers, and Stuermgeschuetzes often are practically invulnerable in situations they were quite vulnerable in real life. The solution is to play scenarios taking that into account, and the easiest way to design a scenario giving the Soviets AP performance like it was during the war is to simply give Soviet tanks lots of Tungsten rounds. Real simple. But if a person must play with Ueber-cats then I say power to him. Some children are so spoiled, they throw fits if they don't get their favorite toys. This is not whining. This is a basic problem with the modeling of the most common Soviet anti-tank weapon of the war.

Well, seeing as I live in Kiev and all, I just thought I would toss in my two kopecks. 1. Not Russia, Ukraine. Kiev is a city in Ukraine, which is a separate country from Russia. It is incorrect to call a battlefield near the capital of Ukraine "a Russian battlefield." 2. The Chernobyl area is not that scary. The pictures you see are of about 1 per cent of the entire territory. Mostly the Chernobyl area is a big forest and swamp jammed with wildlife, because the Ukrainians won't hunt animals there. Tons of boar, beaver, bison - you name it. Streams are full of fish. If you think the Chernobyl "dead zone" is this huge blackened area with no life, well, it isn't. But don't eat the mushrooms. :eek: 3. Elena is pretty and smart, but there are lots of Ukrainian women like that. Although not that many ride motorcycles...

Just a note to the Soviet players, I will process my part of the set-up in the next couple of days. If you have any preferences or suggestions send me an e-mail.

For your reading pleasure, here is a rough translation of the instructions. …hit the viewing slits with all types of weapons. In the gun sight and in the hatch seams there are openings big enough for small arms bullets. Put mass fire on these seams and you can put the crew out of commission. Turret and Cupola The commander’s cupola is one of the most important and vital targets. Shoot at the cupola with incendiary and armor piecing ammunition of all calibers, you can put the cupola out of action. Throw anti-tank grenades or bottles with burning liquid at the turret. Destroy the crew and burn the tank. In the turret there is located the commander of the tank, the commander of the turret, an artillerist and all the mechanisms for controlling the gun and the turret. In battle shoot at the turret with a subcaliber munition from a range of (illegible, something with two zeros) and (illegible) you will wipe out the crew and mechanisms. Cannon and machine guns In the turret is installed the cannon and (coaxial?) machine gun. In the thick frontal armor is installed a (bow) machine gun. The weapons of the tank are the main target for (Soviet) artillerists, anti-tank cannon operators, and snipers. Fire with all types weapons aiming at the armaments of the tank - The tank will stop firing. Use an antitank rifle to strike the bow machine gun mount – you will kill the radio operator and put the machine gun out of action. Roof, air ventilators, hatches and belly of tank On the deck of the hull to the rear of the turret are installed grates (Text is unclear, perhaps aluminum) covering the (engine) ventilation system and fans. The forward ventilator is located in the front portion of the roof of the tank between the driver and the radio operator. Throw onto the grate (illegible) and into the forward ventilator bottles with burning liquid or (illegible) grenades and you will damage the ventilation system, and (illegible) burn the tank. In combat the explosion of a anti-tank mine underneath the belly of the tank breaks the hull and will put the tank out of action. Turret/hull seam Between the top deck of the main hull and the side of the turret is a seam 10 millimeters wide. Shoot at the base of the turret with a heavy-caliber machine gun and cannon of all calibers – the turret will stop turning, and the tank will be unable to perform cannon fire. Fire an incendiary round below the base of the turret and you will penetrate the hull deck and put the tank out of action. The drawing – The drawing shows a big bull’s eye on the commander’s cupola with the instruction “fire here with all types of weapons”. The black arrow indicated the engine gratings and says “throw bottles of burning liquid here”. Another bull’s eye is drawn on the tracks with the instruction “cannon shoot here”. There is an instruction where to throw your anti-tank grenade, but I can’t make out where it is on the drawing. A note on the drawing points at the main gun and says “shoot at the cannon.” Another note points at the exhausts saying “hit the engine and fuel system.”

JasonC, Sure I'll be overall Soviet commander. My command will be ruthless, violent, and strictly along party lines. Some warnings and qualifications. First I am very reliable for doing gaming stuff during the week (ask my ROWV opponents), but weekends not. Personally I am not overly enthused about the tactical battle side. I rate myself as a competent but far from outstanding CMBB player, so frankly I am not the best guy to actually do a fight. Also I almost always don't have enough time for TC/IP, so I am a bad "fill-in" commander. PBEM I can do but I understand how that doesn't help so much. Something to consider, if that disqualifies me as Sove commander well that's life in the big city. OTOH I like operational and have some experience with things Soviet. Hope that floats yer boat. If it does for duplication's sake use two e-mails to get me: dpaukraine@kiev.relc.com korshakhome@kiev.relc.com

Micky D, You are entitled to your opinion but: 1. Soviet data on their own weapons doesn't support it. 2. Soviet combat memoirs don't support it. 3. The Soviets didn't sit still and improved the 76.2mm round. German 80mm armor got worse over time. 4. German memoirs supporting a Stug front basically invulnerable to a 76.2mm strike don't exist. JasonC is quite right that the CMBB solution is better scenario design. Just give the T-34/76 10-20 rounds of tungsten and the game plays out just like WW2. I recommend it, it's really interesting from both sides. The Soviets suddenly have an incentive to zip all over the battlefield, and the Germans are still long-range tough, but they have to think through their KZs. Insisting on impenetrable Stug fronts and TigerI sides is a crutch, as far as I am concerned. (Not you MickyD, I'm ranting generally here.) A final point: the basic load of tungsten AP for a T-34/76 was 5 rounds - plenty for a single engagement.

Does the side commander get to think about air and artillery?

Zwollo2003, First, the Russian Battlefield specifically points out at the top of its armor penetration tables that direct comparison of its numbers with German penetration tables is apples and oranges. Russians tested against harder metal, used a stricter definition of penetration than the Germans, and at times used conservative algorithms to predict penetration. These factors skew downward any penetration tables produced by Soviets, if you compare them to the Germans'. My opinion, the downward skew is about 15 per cent, i.e., if Soviet AP weapons were 15 per cent more powerful in CMBB, they would perform more or less like they did in real life. Second, I don't know what numbers you're looking at on Russian Battlefield. The Russian-language penetration numbers that I am looking at indicate a 76,2mm AP round should have a chance of overcoming 80mm armor starting at something like 500, and almost certainly will overcome that armor at around 250 meters. The power of the 76.2 gun goes up over time as its round improves but the thickness and quality of MKIV, Stuermgeschuetz, and Tiger armor does not. Here is the Russian-language link on the ZiS-5 tank gun: www.battlefield.ru/armaments/zis5_r.html The sources cited are: Entsiklopedia Otechesvennoi Arillerii - A. Shirokopad, 2000 Artillerseyskoe vooruzhenie sovetskikh tankov 1940-1945, Armada-Vertikal, No 4., 1999 I know the former work and its source is actual test data. Further, I see Jentz and Zetterling as suspect. Their assertation German 80mm armor was invulnerable to the Soviet 76.2 gun is mathematical and simplistic. They simply look at numbers on a table under the 80mm column and make a conclusion divorced of historical context. Second, Jentz and Zetterling and their like produce zero I repeat zero evidence the fronts of Stuermgeschuetz and the sides of Tiger were invulnerable to ZiS-5. Here is a limited list of Soviet armor commanders that wrote memoirs and all effectively recorded the following: at medium ranges and lower T-34/76 would defeat any pre-Panther medium German tank at pretty much any aspect. That same 76.2mm gun could not penetrate Tiger frontally, but certainly could do so from flank or rear at 200-300 m. and less. I remind you, these were guys who actually commanded the Red Army tanks: Babazhian, Bagramian, Batov, Leliushenko, Katiukov, Moskalenko, Rokkosovsky, etc. etc. They were there. Jentz and Zitterling were not. JasonC and others have done I think a pretty good job of making this point from the German archival point of view: An account of a Stuermgeschuetz frontally-invulnerable to 76.2mm Soviet AP doesn't exist. Only in CMBB. Not in history, not in accounts by actual participants, not in real life. Only CMBB. In a friendly sort of way, I believe the "weight of evidence" is overwhelmingly against what you are arguing. See the last pages of thread "Why do Soviet tanks get better when Germans capture them"

Thanks for the quick response. Kingfish, I'll try it. JasonC, Yeah, that's en route. What I'm hunting for is which battalions were where, at any given time in the war. [ April 14, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

Ok, let's talk Red Army Order of Battle. Big subject, right? Any recommendations out there on what's the definitive resource on Red Army order of battle? I am doing some work on the 1944 period, but my library really needs the whole list. I understand the root document is the Russian-language "Boevoi sostav raboche-khristianskoi armii vo vremya velikoi otechesvennoi voiny" (Order of battle of the worker-peasant army during the time of the great patriotic war). That could be somewhat off, the precise wording may be a bit different due to transliteration etc. Ideally, I would like to put my hands on this as I read Russian, but I don't know what the resource is properly called, nor do I know where I could get it. Suggestions? Failing the original source, after some googling about I understand there are more than a few English-language Red Army OBs out there. I have no idea of their quality and usefulness, but I figure some one reading this might. Two of the most likely prospects appear to be: Soviet Army Order of Battle 1941-1945 (Paperback) Publisher: Game Book Marketing Co (February 1, 1993) ISBN: 0941052664 Red Army : Order of Battle in the Great Patriotic War (Hardcover) by ROBERT POIRIER Hardcover Publisher: Random House Value Publishing (July 13, 1991) ISBN: 0517071983 Any one out there ever seen these? Maybe some recommendations of other books on the subject. I want as detailed as possible. Down to battalion level. Down to Corps/Brigade level is useless to me. I also read German so maybe there is something in that language. If you have something and want to sell, let's talk. Final not, thanks but don't recommend Glantz, I already have done more than my bit towards that gentleman's retirement fund. The Glantz books on the periods I am interested in, I already have. [ April 14, 2005, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

The recommended Soviet armor tactic for dealing with Panthers or Tigers was: the targeted Soviet tank target backs outta there as fast as it can, the others wait for a target. Most likely thy will get a semi-flanking shot on the German. If they don't they wait wait until the Tiger/Panther advances, and then shoot. The idea is that if you get several unhindered hits the kittie is going to back up or turn a flank, or maybe even you get running gear or a weak point or something. If the Soviet tanks are spread out a bit, then the Tiger/Panther has a good chance of showing a flank. CMBB makes this tactic pretty difficult as the mere gaze of a Tiger/Panther makes a Soviet tank cower. I can understand backing out of a 1-1, but Soviet tankers ought to be progressively braver, the more fire their buddies are putting on a Tiger/Panther. But then, I think Soviet AT weapons were more powerful in real life than they are in CMBB. OBTW You can make a pretty good case Soviet tanks in CMBB are being very rational by cowering - they're not facing real Panther/Tigers, but much more dangerous CMBB ones.

I just had a T-34/76 bog on a road! Sure it was light snow, but sheez, talk about potholes! :mad:

Does any one have contact with Sgian Dubh? I'm still on turn 2 on Moeltke with him, no messages for quite a while. All other games going ok.