Stugs--the danger of Forum reading

[DavidFields]

So, I made the mistake of reading the CMBB forum a lot. I saw many references to the Stugs being such a powerful, almost overly so, tank weapon--particularly the 80mm front armor variety.

Then I play the CMBO scenario, Hello Second Armored

Spoiler, maybe--or, at least info on the forces

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I think it affected my thinking about using all those German Stugs in the scenario. I was doing fine until about turn 20-23. Then I lost 6 in a couple of turns. 2 to bazookas, 2 to side shots from --Stuarts!-- the AI actually ran one quickly around to my side and plugged me, and the other one was lost when my silly tank driver turned to shoot some infantry, leaving the side open to an unseen Stuart. 2 more lost to long shots from a tank destroyer and a Sherman.

Turning what was to be a crushing victory into a possible loss.

First, I remind myself, CMBO is 1944, and most of the CMBB talk likely refers to earlier year.

The Stugs are on the attack, in woods--likely not their ideal operating environment.

CMBO does not have firing arcs, so they would be more vulnerable to distractions.

I knew better. Indeed, I tend to generally prefer tanks/assault guns to be infantry support weapons. But, I goofed, pushed too hard (my infantry was running low of ammo, and I wanted to finish off some last enemy infantry strong points.)

Rats, rats, rats....even when one has an idea of the correct tactics, it can be hard to concentrate on executing on every turn. I'm glad it was only electronic carnage, not real flesh.

[Redwolf]

The CMBB forum rants are not about the StuG front being overmodeled but the Russian 76mm being undermodeled.

[YankeeDog]

HeeHee.

Everything on the forums should be taken with a grain of salt -- including my posts.

And especially careful about applying what you read in the CMBB/CMAK forums to CMBO. In your specific example, smaller AT rounds like the Stuart's 37mm and the 'zook are much more likely to KO AFVs in CMBO than they are in CMBB and CMAK.

There's other stuff too. As Redwolf allues, there's a BIG difference between the Zis-5 vs. StuG in CMBB (i.e., T-34 vs. StuG, the T-34 has virtually NO chance of frontal penetration at ANY range), and the 75mm/L38 vs. StuG in CMBO (Sherman vs. StuG; Sherman has a decent chance of frontal penetration and kill at shorter ranges),

Cheers,

YD

[DavidFields]

Thanks for the very detailed and informative posts, redwolf and yankee dog. The boards are tricky for a CMBO player (one of these days I'll get a stronger computer), because CMBO is not what most people are referring to.

Well, I am interested that a Sherman is so much more powerful than a T-34 (I know--I could get a hail-fire of posts on how it is not--that the T-34 gun is undermodeled). But, again, it is also a question of year--the West Front being so much later in the war) Stukas looked good early in the war (or, to make a more fair comparison, Me-109s), but not by late 1944.

Nevertheless, I still should have known better and pulled back the Stugs at the first sign of a counterattack--buried them in some scattered trees, or keyholed them for a first shot. .....but I cannot get over the Stuarts plugging 2 of them.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Rankorian:

[QBWell, I am interested that a Sherman is so much more powerful than a T-34 (I know--I could get a hail-fire of posts on how it is not--that the T-34 gun is undermodeled). But, again, it is also a question of year--the West Front being so much later in the war) Stukas looked good early in the war (or, to make a more fair comparison, Me-109s), but not by late 1944.

Nevertheless, I still should have known better and pulled back the Stugs at the first sign of a counterattack--buried them in some scattered trees, or keyholed them for a first shot. .....but I cannot get over the Stuarts plugging 2 of them. [/QB]

The Sherman fired an APCBC round with an armor piercing cap that was specifically designed to defeat face-hardened armor, which is what the PzKpfw IVH and StuG IIIG carry on their front aspects.

The T34 with the 76.2mm gun fires a flat/soft nose projectile without an armor piercing cap.

At 500m, the Sherman 75mm M61 APCBC can penetrate 95mm of face-hardened armor, the T34 76.2mm BR-350B APBC can penetrate about 70mm face-hardened. While the T34 76.2mm shoots APBC at 655 m/s, the round is inferior to the Sherman APCBC fired at 619 m/s.

The face-hardened penetration data for T34 76.2mm ammo comes from Russian sources, and is verified by German firing tests (see my thread on the 1942 trials held at Kummersdorf).

To my mind the argument is not over face-hardened penetration or modeling with regard to the T34 76.2mm rounds, it is the armor resistance of the 30mm/50mm and 80mm frontal armor. And the CMBB model where 85mm rounds bounce off of just about everything during 1943.

JasonC has made several good, no, great points. The StuG IIIG front cannot be modeled as a few 80mm plates because the gun mantlet is flat and 50mm thick and a nice big target, the upper superstructure offers about 75mm vertical equivalent resistance, the low slope frontal plates on StuG IIIG contain many openings for bolts and vision areas creating low resistance edge effects, etc.

In later games the Stuart 37mm round isn't as lethal because of the small diameter and the lack of an HE burster. The Brits found that it took one penetration with a 2 pdr to stop a PzKpfw II, but it usually took at least two to stop a PzKpfw III. Target size relative to projectile size is an important consideration.

[ww2steel]

A quick note, and very debateable (sp?) one...

In Korea the Shermans of the day were fighting T-34/85s quite victoriously. You can put this up to our superior training, but a few books state the Sherman as superior to the T-34 of similar year. Interestingly take German captured T-34s and put them up against different Shermans to compare. Correct CMBB modelling? Who knows, but the M4A2(76)W against the T-34/85M44 in two 12 tank battles with set ranges from 200m to 2000m, I took command of 12 tanks on each side to keep it equal... Anyway only 6 Shemans were lost and 23 T-34s (one survived at the 200m range).

Thought this might be interesting.

Mike