In for a Pound AAR. Axis v. AI

[Champagne]

I've taken the time to play through this great scenario a few times. It really is a perfect size, not too small, not too large. Great force mix for both sides. Both sides have the opportunity to use combined arms tactics.

*SPOILERS FOLLOW*

The setting is Sicily, July 43. What strikes me most about my study is that the German

Pzkw IV G (Late) and (Latest) cannot stand up to the British armor mix of Sextons, Sherman IIs and Stuart/Honeys.

The Honey's 37mm can penetrate and destroy the Pzkw IV's frontal armor at 300m range. The Sherman II's 75mm gun can penetrate and destroy Pzkw IV's frontal armor at all scenario ranged, usually on the first shot.

The Pzkw IV's long 75mm gun usually hits on the first shot, but, many hits neither penetrate nor destroy the Sherman II's armor.

I was quite surprised by these revelations. I knew that the Pzkw IV was rather obsolete by Summer 1944, but, I was not prepared to learn that the Pzkw IV was quite inferior even in the Summer 1943.

In this scenario, the Sherman II is a superior AFV to the Pzkw IV G. The Honey can be more deadly and accurate at 300m and less. The Sexton is just as accurate as the Pzkw IVG at 300m and greater ranges.

I had no idea that the Pzkw IV, even in its later versions was such an inferior main battle tank.

The German player will lose the scenario, if he tries to "tank duel" the AI British.

[womble]

Yeah, that summer was the Sherman's time to shine. Don't go hull-down though; the turret isn't as resistant to the longer 75 as the glacis is.

[Erwin]

We'd need to know some probabilities on that, Womble.

Presumably it's a lot harder to hit just the turret as it's smaller. So, you have a better probability of not getting hit at all if you're hull-down. If you're not hull down what are the probabilities of a non-lethal hull hit vs a lethal turret hit?

Someone with a statistical BG maybe could illuminate.

[womble]

We'd need to know some probabilities on that, Womble.

Presumably it's a lot harder to hit just the turret as it's smaller.

Not really, at common engagement ranges for CM maps. The PzIV gun is pretty much a laser at sub-500m and will hit a turret most of the time, IME, if that's all it has to aim at. Longer ranges, not so much, but even on maps that are quite open, Shermans don't seem to pop out from behind cover until they themselves have a decent chance of hitting so ranges tend, in general and my experience, to still be under the half click mark....

[Erwin]

Just curious... if it's that easy for a PzIV to hit a Sherman turret at CM2 ranges, then why don't the German crews do that all the time anyway?

One would think that the AI would calculate the best probability of a kill would be to aim for the turret if it's about as easy to hit as the body. And hence it wouldn't matter if the Sherman was hulldown or not.

[MG TOW]

Played this as well a few times and found it a challenge as German but easier as UK, but not a push over. Anyways I think there is a little more going on. The range may be a pistol fight at first but quickly develops into a knife fight. But the terrain is very hull down on the UK side. Especially where the AI plants the tanks. Probably has something to do with it. On a side note, I actually caused a Sherman crew to bail when they were hit by a lobbing shot from a PZ IIIM.

[Bil Hardenberger]

...Don't go hull-down though; the turret isn't as resistant to the longer 75 as the glacis is.

ALWAYS go hulldown.

[ZPB II]

Played this as the Brits vs. AI and it was brutal to the Krauts. Shermans won every duel with PzIVs. Very good and fun scenario!

[freeeman]

i got my teeth kicked in by the ai playing the germans.. I thought I did so well until my tanks started exploding!

[John Kettler]

Champagne,

Something seems a bit off here. The Panzer IV G (Early) had a long cartridge 75mm fired from an L43 barrel. The Panzer IV F2/G was the same tank as the Mark IV Special which was the best tank Rommel had and which wrought havoc on the British, who had Sherman IIs and Grants as their primary tanks. So, how is it that the Panzer IV G seems to have trouble killing the Sherman II in Italy, when it didn't in North Africa? It's the exact same cast hull Sherman after all. What, if anything, changed to fundamentally alter the earlier gun-armor relationship? If we're talking Panzer IV/G (Late), then the problem, as seen by the Sherman crews, would be even worse.

What I see is that, per ammo expert Williams's table, the Sherman II gun is firing at an MV of 600 m/sec, while the Panzer IV G is firing at either 700 m/sec (L/43) or 746 m/sec (L/48). So, I ask, how is it that the Panzer IV G isn't clobbering the Sherman II--once the Panzer IV G hits?

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotable8.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

"ALWAYS go hulldown."

Would be useful to get a conclusion re whether Bil or Womble is correct.

[Bil Hardenberger]

"ALWAYS go hulldown."

Would be useful to get a conclusion re whether Bil or Womble is correct.

Erwin, always bet on Bil where hulldown is concerned. I have had hulldown tanks never get spotted by non hulldown tanks.. and that really is the point after all.

Bil

[Ron]

Yes, no matter if the turret is the weaker armour or not, always go hulldown. As noted you will definitely be harder to spot and likely harder to hit also(smaller target).

[Erwin]

It is understandable that the hulldown target is harder to see in the first place. But, Womble made the interesting point that at the short ranges of the CM2 smallish maps it's equally easy for an enemy to hit the turret as they can the body.

So, once spotted, it doesn't matter if you're hulldown or not?

[Ron]

I don't know, it seems to me you are making some assumptions there that could easily be *tested* and since you seem curious I think you are the best man for the job. For me, going hulldown makes tactical sense and from my experience proves itself in play as well.