Myth of Invincibility Scenario.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The Panthers in CMBN are only marginally worse at spotting than Pz IVs and Shermans. I don't know if they are the same in CMRT, but I assume they are. I haven't actually done any spotting testing in CMRT and my comments regarding the JPz IV are based only on the anecdotal experiences of myself and several other testers while play-testing a particular scenario (not Myth of Invincibility), so take it with a grain of salt for now.

Prior to that my assumption had been that there was something particular to the Jagdpanther that was causing it's poor spotting, but I now suspect otherwise and the cupola, or lack thereof, is my favorite hypothesis at the moment. At some point I will probably have to break down and do some formal testing of similar vehicles with (Stugs) and without (ISU-122) a cupola to see if a pattern emerges.

[Skwabie]

Right Vanir, thanks for the info. Look forward to more tests of yours! I wonder if the TC's unbutton status mitigate the no cupola spotting deficiency... Also, as a result of your Panther tests, I don't use 'em no more (yes drastic so it's just me).

[Champagne]

You might be ageing like me and misremembering things, do you remember the up roar when Tiger I's drivers front plate was penetrated by 76mm Shermans in the CMBO demo, until people figured out to angle the hull vs the shermans? I think with the tiger they later during CMBB/CMAK figured out that the turret needed to be about 140mm due to turret and mantlet overlap but the DFP was still 10cm.

or the shock postings of Sherman 75mm penetrating StuG's at sub 600m in chance encounter demo?

Sherman 76s would pen the Panther turret at 800m if remember correctly in CMBO and CMBN.

I think you're reacting to the senario just putting the german thicker armour at ranges where it's irrelevant. So the tank combat is who shoots and hits first as opposed to 1000m disadvantage duels.

Could be I'm misremembering things.

But, even though I quit playing ASL and sold all of my ASL sets when CMBO came out, the old impressions of east front tactical combat gained from that game seem to remain in my head.

[Oddball_E8]

Ok, well, this is new.

I did not know that the Jgpz IV Late frontal armor could be penetrated at 1034 meters by the T34/85's 85mm gun.

Nothing I've ever read indicated that could happen, but, there it is. I guess that I need to read more.

It's hard to believe that the Germans lasted until May, 1945.

Well the russian tankers were generally less trained and less experienced.

They also had some odd rules and regulations like ordering tank commanders not to unbutton during a battle. (don't know if that was for the entirety of the war but it happened)

[snarre]

i say this again , panther tanks dont hasto worry ower 500 m , if T34/85 dont hit lover front armo or turret neck. only G panther have poor chanse to be killed trought upper front armor. armor and gun advanse stay on german side. crew exp is big thing because they spot faster,shoot beter and faster.

[Michael Emrys]

But, even though I quit playing ASL and sold all of my ASL sets when CMBO came out, the old impressions of east front tactical combat gained from that game seem to remain in my head.

Not surprising if you played the game for 20 years. I still fondly remember boardgames I played 40-50 years ago even though I might have played them only once or twice.

Michael

[Oddball_E8]

Just played the scenario and I lost 2 panthers and 1 Tiger.

The tiger was my own fault since I moved it very far up on the left flank thinking that "well, they might try to sneak an armored car up there or something" and when it got there, the russians charged about 7 T-34-85's up at the same time...

Needless to say he stood no chance against them at almost point blank range.

The two panthers were lost to 1 penetration of the weapon mount (having had 3 riccochets there earlier) and the other had a partial penetration of the turret front that resulted in a catastrophic explosion...

I certainly feel that the germans can hold their own as long as you don't push in too close.

I think people might have been spoiled with the western front where panthers and tigers were nigh-invincible even at point blank ranges.

Welcome to the russian front gentlemen

[wadepm]

T34's frontal armour does not magically increase the closer it is to fascists, maybe in a different WWII in the multiverse but not the one I'm familiar with.

Sure. But the ability of the T-34 to hit and penetrate goes down. There is more than one variable at work...

[FG ODIN]

the russian tank modells are definitly not to strong, a Jgpz IV is not for offence that is a hunter and he fight best from second line fr covered positions, panthers modells A D and G late are better we russians t34/43 T34/44 T34/85 that is when players errors when he loss the panthers in fights with t34, I can only say what one has the grounds and against all infantry, the reconnaissance may 2 panthers placed beautifully behind ground-wave in position 2 trains infantry advanced to the enlightenment and security and behind the panthers to 3 jgdpz IV in position then to make bursts in the regular each thrust of t34 roll in, the losses occur so you have to expect, was real and so should also be in the game, I can also say "Welcome to the Eastern Front" :D:D:D:

[Oddball_E8]

One thing I find constantly amazes me is when people make claims like "my Panther was knocked out by a T-34-85 in XXX scenario and that just shouldn't happen because the Panther is oh so much better than the T-34"... and then you try the scenario yourself and it turns out it's like 50 T-34's versus 5 Panthers and one of them got knocked out while all the T-34's got knocked out...

Not saying that anyone is claiming that in this thread, but it does pop up every now and then.

[Oddball_E8]

T34's frontal armour does not magically increase the closer it is to fascists, maybe in a different WWII in the multiverse but not the one I'm familiar with.

Well yeah, but the T-34's gun certainly performs better at a shorter range meaning that the fight goes from being a German shooting range to a fair fight... and in fair fights, both sides can get knocked out easily...

[Bastables]

Well yeah, but the T-34's gun certainly performs better at a shorter range meaning that the fight goes from being a German shooting range to a fair fight... and in fair fights, both sides can get knocked out easily...

Yeah.................

So you don't need to rely on flanking to kill T34s, the Germans 75s will penetrate T34s frontal armour even at close ranges.............

[Champagne]

i say this again , panther tanks dont hasto worry ower 500 m , if T34/85 dont hit lover front armo or turret neck. only G panther have poor chanse to be killed trought upper front armor. armor and gun advanse stay on german side. crew exp is big thing because they spot faster,shoot beter and faster.

Good advice. Soft factors for tank crews will dictate how a battle goes. I need to think more about this.

[Champagne]

Just played the scenario and I lost 2 panthers and 1 Tiger.

The tiger was my own fault since I moved it very far up on the left flank thinking that "well, they might try to sneak an armored car up there or something" and when it got there, the russians charged about 7 T-34-85's up at the same time...

Needless to say he stood no chance against them at almost point blank range.

The two panthers were lost to 1 penetration of the weapon mount (having had 3 riccochets there earlier) and the other had a partial penetration of the turret front that resulted in a catastrophic explosion...

I certainly feel that the germans can hold their own as long as you don't push in too close.

I think people might have been spoiled with the western front where panthers and tigers were nigh-invincible even at point blank ranges.

Welcome to the russian front gentlemen

Thanks, Oddball, I appreciate your time and effort in playing and posting. This is a good scenario, and, definitely one of the best in the RT package.

[Champagne]

One thing I find constantly amazes me is when people make claims like "my Panther was knocked out by a T-34-85 in XXX scenario and that just shouldn't happen because the Panther is oh so much better than the T-34"... and then you try the scenario yourself and it turns out it's like 50 T-34's versus 5 Panthers and one of them got knocked out while all the T-34's got knocked out...

Not saying that anyone is claiming that in this thread, but it does pop up every now and then.

That's funny, because people do sometimes post such things.

What to make of it? The person posting such inquiries must be willing to learn, and must have an open mind. New research and new analysis will always necessitate new conclusions in any and every field of learning.

I'm here to learn and to have an open mind. Yes, I've been playing hobby-oriented conflict simulations since 1973. Yes, my first east front tactical game was Panzerblitz. I played Squad Leader, Cross of Iron, GI: Anvil of Victory and Advanced Squad Leader from 1985 to 2000. I earlier claimed 20 years of play, but, it's only 15 years. Still, that's a long time, and, those impressions and memories of the "feel" of play are still in my mind.

So, an open mind and desire to learn are important traits for me now, as, we have new data and research -- and a very detailed simulation in CMRT.

[Champagne]

Not surprising if you played the game for 20 years. I still fondly remember boardgames I played 40-50 years ago even though I might have played them only once or twice.

Michael

On second thought, I played Squad Leader and all its progeny, including the Advanced Squad Leader modules, from 1982 to when CMBO became available. That's about 18 years.

That's why RT can't help but challenge my old impressions of east front combat that I gleaned from so many years of ASL.

Incidentally, although I sold all of my ASL and Sqd Leader stuff years ago, Advanced Squad Leader itself is doing very well as a game. The new ASL modules still sell and players still play. I'm not going back to it, but, ASL is still very popular.

[JasonC]

Virtual German tankers are such wusses. Haven't you fought T-34/76s in Panzer IVs before? Ever tried playing the Allied side in anything?

The allies through most of the war would kill for a tank with a gun that kills any opponent through the front, regardless of its own vulnerability to replies, and would know exactly how to use that, with actual tactics and teamwork, to kill enemy armor. But apparently drivers of German AFVs are so crippled by the past crutch of an impenetrable front that they regard any AFV that can die to enemy tank fire as useless. How lacking in self awareness do you have to be to think that way? How never challenged to get in the other side's shoes for five minutes?

As for the "memories" Champagne relates, they sound like impressions created fighting exclusively T-34/76s, not T-34/85s.

As for the passing comments relating any of the above to winning or losing the war, and how quickly, um... You do realize that the correlation between who was winning and who had the best tanks in tactical gun-armor spec terms is a nearly perfect *negative* one, right? The Germans conquered Europe in Panzer IIIs with 50mm guns. They lost it in Tigers and Panthers. The allies got steamrolled driving Char-Bs and Matildas and KV-1s and T-34s, facing Germans in Panzer 38ts.

Operational factors trump tactical ones, and teamwork and coordination and skill are vastly more important than gun and armor specs, even at the tactical scale.

[Mr.X]

It was, if I remember correctly, Guderian, who said: " At the beginning of the war, we (the Germans) had the worst tanks with the best crews - at the end, we had the best tanks with the worst crews." :-)

Regards

Frank

[Champagne]

Good points, JasonC and Mr. X. All very good points, especially the points about how the Germans were winning with the weak tanks and losing with the better tanks. And, of course, "soft factors" are just as important as the hard data like armor specs.

[slysniper]

.

Yes, I've been playing hobby-oriented conflict simulations since 1973. Yes, my first east front tactical game was Panzerblitz. I played Squad Leader, Cross of Iron, GI: Anvil of Victory and Advanced Squad Leader from 1985 to 2000. I earlier claimed 20 years of play, but, it's only 15 years. Still, that's a long time, and, those impressions and memories of the "feel" of play are still in my mind.

.

many of us have, I started with my first game as Panzer Leader, and played all those you have listed and a few others. Also sold my ASL and made money from what I had even bought them from when I was young.

But I have never had much issue with how the games played. Many love to think that they have data and knowledge of how each tank battle should play out, but the game shows otherwise. In general I think the game might come closer in many respects than that of some old data that some of the Grogs love to point to.

Face it, even during the war. The only way the Armies really knew what might happen was to take a captured tank and fire rounds at it to see what the results were. Compared to what they were being told they could exspect.

I always felt most games show the T34/85 to be a even foe to a panther at typ. combat ranges. (also note, they have discovered that extra frontal armor was factory added at some of the plants to them T34/85's,) so they were even tougher than what the game might be representing.

But I find the best thing to do, is set up test battles, find out what the game tank can do and learn to play with it with that information. It might not be perfect to what someone's stats might say, but in general, they are pretty close to whatever the real thing was and give a 100 yards here or there. there is no issues.

[Oddball_E8]

Never did play table top wargames myself.

Played a bit of warhammer 40k but that's it more or less.

I played alot of close combat and other types of computer strategy games tho, but once I found CM there was no going back.

[Bastables]

Virtual German tankers are such wusses. Haven't you fought T-34/76s in Panzer IVs before? Ever tried playing the Allied side in anything?

The allies through most of the war would kill for a tank with a gun that kills any opponent through the front, regardless of its own vulnerability to replies, and would know exactly how to use that, with actual tactics and teamwork, to kill enemy armor. But apparently drivers of German AFVs are so crippled by the past crutch of an impenetrable front that they regard any AFV that can die to enemy tank fire as useless. How lacking in self awareness do you have to be to think that way? How never challenged to get in the other side's shoes for five minutes?

As for the "memories" Champagne relates, they sound like impressions created fighting exclusively T-34/76s, not T-34/85s.

As for the passing comments relating any of the above to winning or losing the war, and how quickly, um... You do realize that the correlation between who was winning and who had the best tanks in tactical gun-armor spec terms is a nearly perfect *negative* one, right? The Germans conquered Europe in Panzer IIIs with 50mm guns. They lost it in Tigers and Panthers. The allies got steamrolled driving Char-Bs and Matildas and KV-1s and T-34s, facing Germans in Panzer 38ts.

Operational factors trump tactical ones, and teamwork and coordination and skill are vastly more important than gun and armor specs, even at the tactical scale.

Perverse simplification as the majority of French tanks were not Char-B's nor were their a lot of matilda II in France. When they did show up they caused notable setbacks to the panzers that were used to steam rolling over infantry and essentially Tankettes.

Pz38t was also superior/able to kill/steamroll all the Bt's and T26's they came a cropper when the T-34s and KV's started appearing enmass.

North Africa with it's Cruisers on top of substandard brittle Carro Armato and Tankettes. The reverses and heavy losses when thinly armoured cursers went up against 5cm armed PIII with additional armour (relative to 41), and the failure in the PIII Sherman match up. Correlation is not causation especially not when it's misstated or superficial.

[Melchior]

Wasn't the preferred tactic to have a defense in depth such that the Soviet spearhead would lose all momentum until ripe for counter attack? That counterattack would need some assault AFVs I think.

Perhaps I have never fully realized just how much the tactical situation on the East Front had evolved to the Soviets favor by mid-1944.

The Germans avoided purely defensive fighting and carried out localized counter offensives in every theater of the war. Usually led by Panzer Divisions these counter attacks were notorious for punching salients into Allied lines that the Allies would then commit to attacking in the hope of cutting off and annihilating valuable formations in them such the Panzers or Waffen SS. Only to find that the Germans usually withdrew those formations almost as soon as their forward momentum stopped, and instead replaced them with kilometer after kilometer of dug in infantry and anti-tank positions.

From what i've read, defensive prepwork like trenches and foxholes were relatively neglected in the training of the German Army. More than a few Commanders complain about this such as Ernst Rebentisch and I think Guderian somewhere too. The reasoning for this was that being on the defensive sort of implied something had gone seriously wrong and the German Army was better off going on the offensive even when woefully impractical to do so.

[YankeeDog]

The Germans avoided purely defensive fighting and carried out localized counter offensives in every theater of the war. Usually led by Panzer Divisions these counter attacks were notorious for punching salients into Allied lines that the Allies would then commit to attacking in the hope of cutting off and annihilating valuable formations in them such the Panzers or Waffen SS. Only to find that the Germans usually withdrew those formations almost as soon as their forward momentum stopped, and instead replaced them with kilometer after kilometer of dug in infantry and anti-tank positions.

An overly optimistic description of the general success of German counterattacks, at least in the second half of the war. They succeeded occasionally, but failed at least as often: Mortain, Arracourt, Operation Nordwind, Lake Balaton... I could go on.

[slothropsez]

An overly optimistic description of the general success of German counterattacks, at least in the second half of the war. They succeeded occasionally, but failed at least as often: Mortain, Arracourt, Operation Nordwind, Lake Balaton... I could go on.

Most of those operations were idiotic show pieces that flew in the face of the obvious operational situations. Evaluating a doctrine employed by every division commander over the course of a six year war, both during the high times and the low, by citing only four examples can't really make sense, can it?