Jag Panther Fun

[slysniper]

Had a little fun this week-end. Created myself a little quick and dirty scenario.

Set up a German infantry company to defend in a small farm area with one Jag Panther and one Marder III as over watch at about 1000m.

Then had an American tank company with a few armored infantry platoons in HT assault the area and attempt to take over the farm which was the objective. Of course the map was pretty wide open and the whole point was to have a shooting gallery for the Jag.

The marder was placed to take advantage of a ridge so that it was key holed and only saw targets if they were breaking into the farm area. Played the battle three times and just had some fun.

The first thing I note. The American unit had at least two platoons with 76’s on their Sherman’s already. Not bad for being set in August. So it gave them a slight chance.

First battle: 17 Sherman’s killed by the Jag, 1 by the marder. Marder destroyed , farm held

Second battle: 5 Sherman’s by the Jag, 1 by the Marder. Marder destroyed, Jag gun damaged, tank withdrawals, Farm lost.

Third battle: 6 Sherman’s killed by Jag, 5 from the Marder. , Jag gun damaged, tank withdrawals, marder runs out of ammo, withdrawals. Farm lost.

The one thing I noticed from playing this compared to playing something similar in the old CMAK is the fact that the German Uber-tanks is much more fragile to the damages that the game now allows.

It has been pointed out in other threads how gun damage because of mantle hits seems high for what they might be in reality. But on the other hand it is nice to have factors that can take these tanks out of a battle.

I still had the invincible outcome once, but it was nice to see that it was not a guarantee as it almost was in the old CMAK version.

[siffo998]

Had a little fun this week-end. Created myself a little quick and dirty scenario.

Set up a German infantry company to defend in a small farm area with one Jag Panther and one Marder III as over watch at about 1000m.

Then had an American tank company with a few armored infantry platoons in HT assault the area and attempt to take over the farm which was the objective. Of course the map was pretty wide open and the whole point was to have a shooting gallery for the Jag.

The marder was placed to take advantage of a ridge so that it was key holed and only saw targets if they were breaking into the farm area. Played the battle three times and just had some fun.

The first thing I note. The American unit had at least two platoons with 76’s on their Sherman’s already. Not bad for being set in August. So it gave them a slight chance.

First battle: 17 Sherman’s killed by the Jag, 1 by the marder. Marder destroyed , farm held

Second battle: 5 Sherman’s by the Jag, 1 by the Marder. Marder destroyed, Jag gun damaged, tank withdrawals, Farm lost.

Third battle: 6 Sherman’s killed by Jag, 5 from the Marder. , Jag gun damaged, tank withdrawals, marder runs out of ammo, withdrawals. Farm lost.

The one thing I noticed from playing this compared to playing something similar in the old CMAK is the fact that the German Uber-tanks is much more fragile to the damages that the game now allows.

It has been pointed out in other threads how gun damage because of mantle hits seems high for what they might be in reality. But on the other hand it is nice to have factors that can take these tanks out of a battle.

I still had the invincible outcome once, but it was nice to see that it was not a guarantee as it almost was in the old CMAK version.

sounds like fun!

so basically around 20 sherms against 1 jagdpanther and a marder. actually i think that you were really lucky that you won at least one of the three games. one thing i have experienced in my cm2 matches is that the TacAI intelligently uses a combination of AP and !HE! rounds against enemy tanks. so even when the armor cannot be penetrated the HE rounds will damage all kinds of subsystems (optics, radio) if it explodes on the tanks surface. you can read up some sherman veteran accounts, they basically also used a combination of smoke, AP and HE rounds to defeat the german big cats once spotted.

back to your setup: tanks and tanks destroyers should never be used alone. i`ve red in a german tank manual that a lonely german tank is considered as good as dead.

at least use them in platoon strengh for interlocking fire support.

[slysniper]

Actually 18 Shermans, 3 platoons of 5 and 3 leader tanks

You are correct in that it would not be a wise use of the German forces, but really, was not the point of the Scenario.

Lets face it, the Germans were lacking equipment all the time to do what they wanted by this point in the war. So it does not seem too unrealistic to assign a jag. to be support and the Marder to give it flanking security.

[Michael Emrys]

...tanks and tanks destroyers should never be used alone. i`ve red in a german tank manual that a lonely german tank is considered as good as dead.

That's a position I've advocated since CMBO days. Single AFVs just tend to get killed without doing much in return. If you can't afford to buy at least two (and more is better), you'd be better off not buying any and getting something else, like an extra artillery battery, for instance. All that said, slysniper has a point too, and of course one can play the game however one wants.

Michael

[siffo998]

All that said, slysniper has a point too, and of course one can play the game however one wants.

Michael

of course! it wasnt my intention to judge somebodys gaming experience. i just wanted to present my experiences with the simulation and give a tip or two. Hope it hasn`t sounded to arrogant

after all sly was succesfull with his setup at least in one game of three so it wasn`t so bad...

[slysniper]

Not at all, just pointing out what you understand.

Michael, I think is referring to more of a decision when one is playing a QB or something along that line.

Which is another good point. You likely would not get your money's worth just buying one tank destroyer.

I agree in that if you are going to invest in armor, you want enough of it to try a trump the battlefield wherever you are going to use it. The point is to create a force that can control its safety by its sheer firepower. hard to do in a meeting engagement that has equal force amounts at the start.

As for my scenario, none of that matters. Scenarios are based on either what did happen or what might have happened. So placing a single jag in a somewhat perfect terrain feature for it and seeing how it does against a large force is what my intent was. And really, it never reflected badly.

even in a battle where it only managed 5 kills and had to withdraw because of damage is not something the enemy would be pleased about. It would be repaired and used to kill again on another day.

It dominated the battle field, none of the infantry managed to take out a single tank in any of the battles. There was 120 mortars and on board 81's, from what I recall, i DID NOT SEE A SINGLE IMMOBILIZATION, LET ALONE A KILL .

So the focus of th battle is the Jag, its center stage, the rest of the units are a side show for what it accomplishes in the battle. Its performance will dictate the battle, nothing else will.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree in that if you are going to invest in armor, you want enough of it to try a trump the battlefield wherever you are going to use it. The point is to create a force that can control its safety by its sheer firepower. hard to do in a meeting engagement that has equal force amounts at the start.

To expand on this point a little, I offer two cases.

In the first, you buy one tank and your opponent buys one ATG. Chances are, he spots and shoots at you first. If his first shot hits and is a killer, you've lost your armor.

In the second instance, you buy two tanks and he buys one ATG. Again, he shoots first and maybe he scores a kill on one tank. However, there is a chance, maybe even a good chance, that having opened fire, the ATG is now spotted by the second tank which fires before the ATG can shift targets. The ATG is now dead or at least suppressed, allowing the second tank to get another shot at it. Likely the final result is one dead tank, one dead ATG. But now, the second tank can do whatever it was you bought the armor for in the first place.

This is a very simplified description of situations that as we know could in practice play out in a variety of ways, but I think it does illustrate the principle. And that is, usually a single tank is an expensive investment that may not last long enough to justify its expense. A platoon of tanks is obviously going to be even more costly, but at least has a chance of completing the mission. This is not to advocate an all-armor or necessarily an armor-heavy OOB, but depending on the mission and the terrain you will be operating in and the likely composition of the opposition, if you are going to use armor at all, be sure you get enough.

Michael

[slysniper]

Yes, that clears things up a little as to your intent.

[slysniper]

ran the mission for a forth time , lost the gun to a hit again.

So within 4 missions. Three times the German tank has had to withdrawl because of gun damage.

I hate to say it, but I can see why some are complaining about how this happens way too much.

I sure dont remember coming across records talking about American gunners focusing on trying to hit the mantle at a 1000 meters and able to get German heavy tanks to withdrawl.

But in three games with approx. 5 hits per game, the Americans have damage the gun three times. I am not really liking how quickly this is showing up. But I will run it a few more times just to see.

But not being a test, it does not prove anything. but I know some test have been done and they look to show likely high results in this catagory.