siffo998

i have recently started to develop a tank vs tank scenario using CMBN. MKIVs against shermans. while doing that i have red some threads here and at the forum of theblitz. at theblitz there was a rather large complaint from a member that MKIVs are useless: (http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=65808). Over here at battlefront i`ve red a thread today that MKIVs are far superiour against shermans (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=115617). this was the reason why i started a little test scenario to show that theres a difference between the different types of shermans. map: completely flat without obstacles. 1500m distance between the opposing tanks. All tanks are at regular experience with the modifiers at 0. first test: on the one side a company +1 (18 tanks) of PZIV H late on the other side a company (18 tanks) of sherman M4A1 75mm late. facing each other like i said above at 1500m distance. I`ve used the two player head to head mode so that i could control both sides. i`ve unbottoned every tank at the start of the battle. after that i hit the go button and let the battle unfold. I gave no further orders after unbuttoning the tanks. I`ve expected the german Panzers to get the upper hand very quickly especially at that range. here are the results after 5 battles with this setup: 1. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 6 2. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 6 3. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 3 4. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 8 5. battle: Americans lost 13 tanks; Germans lost 18 rather clear 4 to 1 result in favour of the german tanks. second test: on the one side a company +1 (18 tanks) of PZIV H late on the other side a company (18 tanks) of sherman M4A3 75mm early. facing each other like i said above at 1500m distance. Again i`ve used the two player head to head mode so that i could control both sides. i`ve unbottoned every tank at the start of the battle. here are the results after 5 battles with this setup: 1. battle: Americans lost 14 tanks; Germans lost 16 (the last tank still able to fire was a german one. the remaining shermans lost their main gun) 2. battle: Americans lost 3 tanks; Germans lost 18 3. battle: Americans lost 7 tanks; Germans lost 18 4. battle: Americans lost 8 tanks; Germans lost 18 5. battle: Americans lost 5 tanks; Germans lost 18 a clear result in favour of the M4A3s. The additional armour really pays off at these distances. a lot of MKIV fire simply bounced off the glacis while the shermans had little problem destroying the german tanks (especially through the turret). so all i wanted to show is that theres a difference between the versions of shermans (also the brit and canadian ones) and how they stand against MKIVs. Conclusion: The first two minutes of the test decided the outcome. The possibility to pop smoke is a rather big advantage from the sherman tanks in a real battle. Against M4s and M4A1 and biritsh shermans I to III a head to head engagement at longer ranges might turn out in a good way, still a lucky hit can destroy your pzIV. I reccomand always using superiour numbers against the enemy. Against M4A3s the story is a different one. Uparmored front plates make them a though foe at larger distances. Well i leave it open to discussion how you think about those results.

forget it i think i`ve figured it out how to upload and include at least the hit picture. i`ve got another one showing the distance. you can still pm me and i can invite you to the dropbox folder.

happened a second time just moments ago range 1030m t34-85 against panther A (mid) using AP shells. the panther took quite a beating but finally a penetration through glacis. i do not think that its because of manufacion flaws because this would lead to additional armor spalling and partial penetration hits but there are only riochets and a full glacis penetration (leading to a desturcion of the tank). theres still the question if CM is modelling armor weakening after additional hits but this would also lead to armor spalling/partial penetration hits first. i have the screenshots available. maybe you can send me your mail adress per pm and i will invite you to the dropbox folder with the pics. or is there another way to post pics without hosting them on a site ?

well thx for the explanation vanir! still the t34 glacis against pzIV hits seems a bit weak to me. i havent seen a single armor spalling or partial penetration right now even at longer ranges. all hits seems to go cleanly through... but maybe its just me.

i doubt it that a t34-76 (or any other compareable tank) can achieve a full penetration (maybe some spalling) against a plate in this angle. it would just slide off! especially when using a kinetic energy AP shell. maybe the t34 used a modern HEAT shell ?!

happened as well in my test run with a panther A mid against a t34-85 at 1000m distance. after around 4 hits at the glacis the panther received a full glacis penetration (1000m distance). By the way i doubt that CM is modelling decreasing armor strengh with multiple hits. and additionally the manual mentions only the panther G (early) with manufaction flaws. theres nothing about manufactioning flaws at the panther A, or D.

well i could say the same to you why are the results of a waffenprüfung less believable than combat reports (maybe flawed by bias and exaggeration) ? how come that there are such totally different results between waffenprüfung 1944 and reports out of jents ? Iam not saying that the t34 is invincible at that ranges. 1)The turret is always the weak spot even in the t34-85s (100mm turret armor) and penetrations from the front at these ranges can be explained with turret hits (theres a reason why the russians incresed the turret armor with the 85 version but left the glacis armor untouched). 2) there are a lot of weak spots in the glacis plate of the t34. iam not saying that a t34 should always withstand the 75mm shots when angled 30° and further away than 100m. But a 60° horizontally angled plate with additional vertical angling of 30°. how on earth can a AP shells bite into that kind of armor at 1000m. theres virtually no surface to bite, it just glides away.

never had a strange experience like that and i also think that infantry fighting is modelled better than in cm. but theres a multitude of updates (like a jungle) to the game so maybe youve played a very early version. but back to penetration values: the germans state themself (in their tigerfibel tanker manual) that the tiger is frontally vulnerable to t34-76 fire at ranges under 500m. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf

well iam on your side when you say you cannot see this when you play the game right now but: 1) in the game manual itself the t34 gets a yellow dot armor rating against a orange dot rating from the pzIV (frontally). 2) the t-34 has 100m turret armor against 50mm turret armor from the pzIV. 3) according to jentz tiger book the tiger needs to be 100m or closer to penetrate the t34s glacis if the t34 is standing in a 30° angle to the tiger. (tiger is not pzIV but the 88mm is even better than the short 75mm from the pzIV). the source is a waffenprüfung from october 1944. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm 4) i`ve played a lot of achtung panzer operation star and the results t34 vs panzerIVG (1943) were highly different from what i can see right now in CMRT. t34s glacis often bounced shells from the 75mm at 800m and even closer. by the way those designers are building military training complexes and have a military backgrounds + t34s at hand, so i think they know what they are talking about. 5) from what i have seen i also think that something is amiss or broken or strangely modelled regarding armor right now. i cannot point the finger on it (wrong data, too highly flawed armor values, wrong sloping, uppowered penetration values...) but something is strange about armor penetration right now. like some other forum members in other threads already mentioned.

the guns maybe equal but the t34-85 armor (frontal sloped) is better than the pz Ivs.

well i might be wrong but according to the table shown in here (out of jentz tiger book): http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm a tiger tank must be 100m or closer to penetrate the t34-85 front hull if the t34 stands in a 30° angle to the tiger. the data from this stems from a Wa Prüf 1 report dated 5th October 1944. on the other hand the t34-85 needs to be 300m or closer to penetrate the front of the tiger (at 30° angle).

well i`ve just checked the scenario and there are only t34-85s on the russian side so theres no wonder that your panzer IVs get screwed. theres nearly no chance that a panzer IV can withstand a shot from the 85. but on the other hand the long 75 guns from your panzer IVs are also capable to one-shot-kill a t34-85 from the front (even at longer range). so its kind of a duel. try what i`ve suggested and maybe keep some tanks in reserve to flank the assault when its getting through the two lakes! that should do the trick but theres always a bit of luck necessary.

Well your panzer IVs are superior (at least at long range) against t34-76 but inferior to t34-85 and everything better. Keep your distance and pop up in hull down position to spot and fire (for about 20-25 seconds) and immediately reverse back out of sight. Build a base of fire with all your tanks available. Do not pop up with single tanks to stop a full tank assault.

well first i`ve just had the time to rerun your scenario and i`ve got 8 KIA and 8 WIA which is in my opinion still a lot of casualties for a entrenched force thats randomly shot at by four 10,5cm pieces. In % these are exactly 10% casualties (out of 160 Men total). second there are some differences between our tests: 1) you are using CMFI 1.01. Iam using CMBN 2.01. Dont know if theres something changed regarding artillery but there are definitely differences regarding environment and ground conditions. 2) my force consists of 164 men (a small difference ) 3) and thats the most important in my opinion: you are centering most of your men in the middle of the map directly in a village with the trenches beside the buildings. so most of the company in the middle does not get any casualties because the buildings around the trenches protect them from shrapnells... etc...

cannot open your file. which version of CMBN do you use ?