!@&!@*%##!! Shermans stink!

[jgdpzr]

Hi guys,

First time poster here, so first order of business is to congratulate, and thank, BTS for their outstanding accomplishments thus far regarding this groundbreaking game.

I just played CE for the first time last night. Playing as the Germans, I got a bitter taste of the Shermans. I setup my forces to engineer a kill zone that should have been quite successful as the AI sent its M4s straight into it. Unfortunately, I lost all three of my Stugs with only one M4 to show for their efforts. Maddening thing was that all three were in scattered trees in what I thought were very good ambush positions (two on the reverse slope of the ridge with right flanks protected by the hill and woods and the other in a stand of trees middle edge of the map near where the Germans start). In fact, each Stug was taken in out in single engagements with Shermans that had just driven onto the plateau next to the church. In each engagement, the Shermans got off the first shots and in fact one got off two before the Stug it was targeting responded, this despite the Stugs being partially hidden in ambush positions. I lost two stugs in one turn, both taken out by the same Sherman sitting nicely silhouetted out in the open. My question is this: Do I attribute this to dumb luck, or are there other factors involved? The one thing that sticks in my mind is that the two stugs positioned behind the hill and woods were canted at a slight angle because of the slope of the hill. Would this angle result in accuracy problems for their gunners (as I assume it could in real life)? If so, lesson learned and I give a nod to the designers to take this into account.

Oh well, when I get home tonight I am going to replay the scenario with the exact same setup to see if I get the same results.

Thanks again BTS, I eagerly await the release of this sleep-depriver.

[Fionn]

You were just unlucky.

The same thing happened to me in my first game of Chance Encounter. 3 StuGs in ambush positions died before they even got 2 shots off .

Overall though this was just extremely bad luck as is sometimes bound to happen. I doubt it'll happen to you again.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Moon]

One word of caution about those "scattered trees", by the way. There is a reason why these are called scattered trees and not something like "light woods". Scattered trees are just that - single trees standing together in a loose group. Even during summer time it is NOT a very good position to hide a tank or assault gun in. Even for an infantry sqaud there is hardly any good cover there. In winter time it becomes even worse. Believe me, I learned it the hard way - look at the AARs between Fionn and me to see what I mean

[This message has been edited by Moon (edited 11-24-99).]

[Fionn]

In fact I think scattered trees are about the WORST place to put infantry since the enemy can get treebursts with their arty.

In Riesberg I used one of the German 81mm mortars to fire area fire into some trees and managed to pin and kill a lot of an American platoon. The 81mm mortar was the only unit firing but it stopped an entire platoon PURELY because it got treebursts.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[CoolColJ]

Better in light Trees than out in the open though right?

------------------

CCJ

aka BLITZ_Force

My Homepage - Just updated, check out my MP3

and Combat Mission photos

www.geocities.com/coolcolj/

[Fionn]

I think so yes..

I presume you meant Light Woods BTW.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

IT just so happens that last night I came across an old 1945 DA pamphlet entitled US v german Equipment. (I have a buddy that works in the National Archives) It has at least 150 interveiews with US tankers and other Amroed soldiers form various units who fought in Northewest Europe in 44-45. First off, the remarks are pretty much consistent across the board in guys from all units and all ranks from Privates to Colonels. I'll summarize:

This is their opinions not mine.

1. German tanks are on a whole superior to US tanks in almost every realm. Particularly the MkV and Mk VI

2. Gunnery. The high velocity 75 and 88mm german guns are superior to the low velocity 75 and 76m guns carried by the Shermn. Even the US 90mm seems to have drawn luke warm response when compares to German AT guns. In fact many times it was mentioned that the vast majority of German tanks losses were attributed to air power, breakdown or abandonment while he vast majority of US tank losses were to those damn AT guns.

3. Armor and portectin. German tanks have greater portectin than the Shermn. There are litteraly dozens of first ahnd accounst where US Sheramns are bouncing rounds off german tanks in anywhere from 300m to 1500m with no effect and then the Panther or Tiger swings around and brews up several shermans then mosey's away. Many times the remark "a real morale killer" or "shattered morale" is mentioned.

4. Optics. The german optics are markedly superior to US optics.

5. Manueverability. Both the Tiger and the pantehr have superior manueverbility over the Sherman particularly in Mud and deep snow. Both german tanks have wider tanks and do not sink in as far as US tanks. (BTW Fionn one guy entioned the Panthers ability to spin on a dime without having to do the whole reverse forward thing.)

6. Smokeless powder. This was mentioned time and time again. The german tank rounds porduce little or no smoke. The US rounds produce so much smoke that it's impossible to view the fall of shot in any but the longest ranges. Also this means germans can fire up US tanks from hiding while the opposite is mroe difficult.

7. Overall most agreed that the only significant advanatge the US had was quantity. unfortunately this is hardly any comfort at all to the tankers expect to bear the brunt of the War of atrition. After all they are the guys getting attritted!

ANyway it's a fascinating read. No doubt kept secret till after the war since any new tanker rereading this document would have started out his career in a state of shattered morale.

Los

P.S> On the bright side most agreed that we did have more confortable uniforms.

[Ken Talley]

LOS, do you have the exact title of that pamphlet? I would like to try to source it.

Thanks,

Ken

[W583]

I WAS PLAYING LAST DEFENCE WITH ALLIE.... AND I DESTORY ALL GERMAN TANKS

(EVEN THE TIGER --DAM THING KILL TWO OF MY SHERMAN)

BUT I HAVEN'T KILL ANY OF THE HALFTRACK

SO I SEND MY LAST SHERMAN TO KNOCK THEM OUT

BEFORE THEY GET THE TROOPS OFF (GET SOME KILLS) BUT THE DAM AI GOT ALL OF THEIR TROOPS OFF BEFORE I EVEN GET A SHOT AND THEY MOVE IN TOWARD MY TANK..... (I THOUGHT THE AI WENT NUTS) BUT IT TURN OUT THEIR M-GUN KNOK MY SHERMAN OUT

AND I REALLY WANT TO KNOW HOW IN THE WORLD DID THAT HAPPEN

M-GUN CAN KILL TANKS IN CLOSE RANGE??? BECAUSE THERE IS NO TROOPS OR PENZERCHECK AROUND 300M

ALL I GOT TO SAY IS SHERMAN SUCKS

------------------

[Ben Galanti]

Err, if you're playing Last Defense, then those aren't Sherman's. They are M-18 Hellcats, open topped tank destroyers. Now, depending on the angles and such, a MG can shoot down into the open top and kill some of the crew (causing them to abandon) or perhaps the MG team threw a grenade into the Hellcat...

[W583]

sorry i made a mistake

it is the hellcat

not the sherman

=P sorry

[W583]

I DIDN'T KNOW THE HALFTRACK GOT GRENADE ??

THE TROOPS IN THE HALFTRACK ARE DROP OFF FAR FAR AWAY BEFORE THEY GOT TO MY HELLCAT

AND I DONT KNOW

MAYBE U ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE ANGLE OF MG SHOOTING IT

BUT HOW COME WHEN IT WAS ABANDON IT SAID

''FRONT UPPER HULL PENETRATION

KNOCK OUT''

[Fionn]

"(BTW Fionn one guy entioned the Panthers ability to spin on a dime without having to do the whole reverse forward thing.)"

Yeehaw, neutral turn

W583...

Check the other thread you started with those posts. The Hellcat died due to a Panzerfaust hit (unless you hadn't killed Both StuGs by that time in which case one of them got it.)

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

The exact title is:

UNITED STATES vs GERMAN EQUIPMENT

As Prepared For The Commander Supreme Allies Expeditionary Force.

WW2 Histrical Society Monbograph 240. I was quoting from "Exhibut C: Personal Convictions of individul officers and enlisted men of eth 2d armored division as to comparison of German vs American Armor and Equipment"

[Guest JonS]

interesting that they mention the optics were "markedly superior" to the US version...

Jon

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Gunnery. The high velocity 75 and 88mm german guns are superior to the low velocity 75 and 76m guns carried by the Shermn. Even the US 90mm seems to have drawn luke warm response when compares to German AT guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very true. We never produced a decent high velocity gun. Part of the problem was the relative poor quality of powder used in the ammo. The 76 performed well during trials (they used British powder during the trails), but performed poorly in the field.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. Optics. The german optics are markedly superior to US optics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if this is actually true, but it might have been the impression of those facing the Germans. One of the biggest advantages that the Germans had over the allies was in training. The Germans were well known for the effectiveness of their AT gunnery, mortar gunnery and machinegun usage. With tank gunnery, the biggest difference between the German training and that of the allies, was firing on the move. The Germans trained extensively on firing accurately will moving.

[Guest R Cunningham]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We never produced a decent high velocity gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We still don't. The the M68 105mm gun used on the M60 and early M1s ia actually a copy of the British L7A1 gun. The M256 120mm smoothbore on the M1A1 is from Rheinmetall but built under license in the US. The last tank gun we designed was th 90mm in the M47/M48 series. well, that's if you don't count that 152mm gun/launcher thing they put in the M60A2 and Sheridan.

[Ari Maenpaa]

LOS, thank You for very interesting information.

And a big thank You to BTS for their brilliant game.

So the best AT-gun the western allied had during WWII was the british 17 pounder.

And, as I see it, not even that was on par with the 88 kwk 43. Anyway in CM's terms it probably doesn't make a big difference between those three.

Maybe the smokeless powder and training differences should have a bigger impact in the game. As I see it now, the gunning accuracy and loading speed between STUGs and Shermans in CE are pretty much identical.

And one more thing: I would like to know what the pamphlet says about the Pershing heavy tank.

Surely it was better than Shermans but was it on par with german heavy tanks and tank destroyers? How the soldiers felt about it?

Ari Maenpaa

[Dar]

I think one of the best ways to simulate those advantages of optics and accuracy will be using better crew quality for the Germans when you create scenarios. Making the German crews "Crack" or "Elite" will give them a marked advantage over "Green" or "Regular" (or even "Veteran") US crews.

Dar

[Los]

Interesting you asked about the Pershing. I am not privy to the questions all these guys were asked but one of them appears to be "what do you think of the new Pershing tank?"

Most had no experience with it, but some were familiar with the 90mm on the Pershing, a smaple:

A Captain:

"Little is known about the M26, but from observation of the 90mm gun on the tank destroyer, the men still feel that the high velocity 75mm and 88mm that the Germans use is most effective aggainst armor. Our guns still lack high velocity."

A Platoon Sergeant"

The 90mm on the T26 is almost comparable to the German 88mm on the MkVI but does not obtain the necessary muzzle velocity to penetrate the Mk V or Mk VI from the front. I believe the lack of a muzzle brake on our AT is a definate inferior point when comparede to german AT guns. I have seen 90mm AP cap bounce of a MK VI at 1400 yards. In turn I have seen a MkVI knock out an M4 at 3300 yards..."

REgarding Optics the point seems to be while We had a wider FOV, the Germman optics were more powerful (3 times as much says one guy) and included a range finder. ALso the lack of a muzzle brake and the smokey powder made target reacquisition or judging fall of shot after firing very difficult. A couple guy went into great detail on these points.

Remember that all these remarks are subjective, (though I put a lot of stock in what combat vets interviewed during the period would have said) but they are useful for confirming and tweaking hard data whne available. IMO the most significant data was the constant remarks on smokeless vs smokey powder and the ramifications ina tank fight of each one. That would be stuff which would not come out in trials but would have a definate impact on fights.

Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrtrate it. If not have agreat day anyway.

Los

P.S>

I will be sending the whole thing off to BTS so I'm sure you guys will see some of it posted online eventually.

[Ken Talley]

Dar, we could make crews elite or crack to reflect German optics/accuracy advantages. But it is a workaround and has drawbacks. The accuracy/optics issue is only of importance at longer range. By making a crew elite/crack, you are giving that crew advantages at all ranges not just long. Plus the elite/crack designation probably gives other advantages to a crew beyond accuracy/optics-say faster reaction times, better morale, better spotting, etc. All of those other advantages are unrelated to optics/accuracy.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-25-99).]

[Gromit]

Los and everyone:

Great stuff!

In reference to German optics and associated training, I highly recommend that you visit Wings Simulations website and check out their discussions/research on German methods.

While I have not bought Panzer Elite from them yet (I hear it is buggy), I value Teut Wiedermann's opinions and am thankful they took the time to post interesting stuff such as:

There is a excellent article on the German method of range determination for tanks. They used different size triangles in the optical gear and although the explanation can get convoluted to a non-tanker like me, I think this visual system (and good training) played a major role in German superiority when it came to putting effective fire on a given target. To my knowledge, none of the other major powers had anything to match the German optical system.

I used to think that when people said "The Germans in WW2 had better optics" that they meant the actual materials and workmanship of the site, scope, etc.; but since reading the article noted above, I believe a big part of it had to do with the "triangles" system.

Another neat page on the site has an actual diagram from a manual for training Tiger crews in range determination. Of course the writing is rather small and in German, but I liked it anyway.

I am intrigued by the whole notion of powder quality in U.S. shells vs. other nations. I never knew that it was an issue.

It's amazing that the USA ended up in the driver's seat when you consider all the technical handicaps the U.S. military had in WW2. Of course, logistics can offset other shortcomings...

PW

[Fionn]

I am credited as a Lead Tester for Panzer Elite as is an ex-M1 man who is also testing Combat Mission.

I think it's safe to say that a lot of the experience and tester knowledge which went into PE is available for CM .

The German optics had a couple of major differences to normal:

1. They often allowed greater magnification (which allows crews to be a bit more accurate if they're given more time to observe the enemy).

2. The system the Germans utilised allowed more accurate range readings. Teut isn't actually talking about triangles being used to measure distance to target. He is talking about how the triangles on the two separate rangefinders were utilised so that when the triangle on the rangefinder which was focussed (using focal length variations) on the US tank COINCIDED with the triangle on the other rangefinder then a gunner would have the following:

1. The two images of the enemy tank which were created by the two separate viewfinders would "coincide"

2. The two triangles would coincide.

3. The enemy tank should be perfectly in focus.

4. He then simply look at the range indicator which was determined by the focal length of the adjustable rangefinder (using a simple physics formula and a gearing system) and then cranked in whatever superelevation he needed.

Hmm. that looks a little confusing but its the best I can do in such a short space and time (I have to go out now).

Basically Teut meant that the use of coincidence rangefinders (which utilised triangles as a means of determining "coincidence) gave the Germans an accuracy advantage (although they slowed aiming down so much that sub 1 km I do believe most experienced German crews just shot from the hip as it were.

I'm with Los on the powder issue though. I can see how it would be a major issue in a firefight as opposed to testing and would like to see it modelled. I remember reading about this before but it hadn't surfaced in my mind as an issue till now.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest JonS]

Sorry Fionn, but I really think you have the wrong end of the stick on this one. From the article at the PE site, and my own experience using mils, I think you’re mixing things up a bit. The triangles ARE used to measure range to target.

Short theory lesson on mils:

A mil is a measure of angle. 1 mil is the angle subtended by 1 metre at 1000 metres (this is the key to the usefulness of mils. The one-at-1000 rule makes the maths used later MUCH easier). Using a little maths you’ll see that there are 6400 mils in a full circle (ie the circumference of a 1000m radius circle is 6400m), instead of 360 degrees. (Actually, it doesn't exactly line up but its near enough for government work). Also using a little maths you'll see that 1 degree is approx 17.8 mils.

Now, in terms of the triangles in the German optics referred to in the article, each measurement between points on the various triangles represents a different amount of mils. For example (from memory); 4 mils across the base of the large one, 2 mils across the base of the little ones, 1 mil between adjacent corners of the little ones, etc.

To use this successfully in combat you need to know how big typical targets are. Again an example: FOs are trained that a typical platoon covers an area 150m x 150m. Similarly the sizes of enemy tanks are part of the training for AFV crews.

To actually apply this in combat then requires the following process:

1) observe target

2) measure size of target in mils (can be either apparent width or height)

3) apply a bit of maths to figure out the range

4) apply range to gun

5) engage target derived range.

Step three can get a bit involved. As a simple example consider a target viewed through the sight and seen to be 3 mils wide. The target is at perfect right angles to the observer, and known to be 3m long. From above we know that 1mil at 1000m equals 1m, so we can deduce that 3mils for a target known to be 3m long gives a range of 1000m. If the same target were re-observed an seen to be 1mil wide we can figure out that it must now be 3km away, and similarly if it were 6mils wide it is now only 500m away. I know this sounds convoluted, but trust me, it gets easier and much faster with practice

This has nothing to do with coincidence telescopes, fiddling about with dials, etc. Its just observe, mental calculation, apply, shoot.

Regards

Jon

Note: Using the Coincidence Range Finder for longer range shooting is a separate issue, not to be confused with any of the above

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 11-25-99).]

[Fionn]

JonS,

It's funny in a way... Your post shows EXACTLY why I don't like posting " Cliff Notes" (I think that's what you Americans call them right?) versions of complicated things.

If I miss a point people think I'm saying that point doesn't matter etc .

Well written post BTW JonS. Of course you are right in saying that the triangles were gradiated so as to serve the same function as mils BUT... and here's the really important point... the coincidence rangefinder in which the stereoscopic images of the enemy tank were lined up so that they coincided (which incidentally also lined up the triangles) was the PRIMARY means of calculating range in German tanks.

The triangles could be used to roughly and quickly guesstimate the range by bypassing the coincidence rangefinder and just using one of the viewfinder images and using the triangles in the same way as mil markings (and obviously the more experienced the crew the better the guesstimate) BUT the coincidence rangefinder was the equivalent of the GPS (Gunner's Primary Sight) while the triangles were a backup for when ONE of the viewfinders was knocked out.

Note: Since coincidence rangefinding depends on stereoscopic images being available to the gunner's eyes knocking out one of the two viewfinders effectively prevents coincidence rangefinding being possible.

So, when a viewfinder was knocked out the gunner would use a single sight and use the triangles to generate the whole mil-based range.

Personally in PzC and in PE (both of which I was involved with) I use the coincidence rangefinder as a rangefinder of choice and only fall back on the triangles (mils etc) when the primary sight is damaged or I'm at very close range. I find the coincidence rangefinder's accuracy makes up for its slowness of use.

I know I should practice more with mils to become proficient but there's only so much time in a day

So, in summary. German tanks used the coincidence rangefinder primarily and fell back on the triangles when that was damaged or range was low. BTW when I spoke in another thread of gunners "setting their sight to 800 metres" I was referring to them calibrating the variable sight to 800 metres, thus achieving a coincident image at that distance which, from experience allowed them to read the distance to the enemy tank by how far it was out of focus.

The problem with explaining this in a forum is that it is obvious to me very few people read a long post so I'm trying to save my own time and everyone else's by simply keeping my posts as narrowly focussed as possible (thus not alluding to the whole mils issue with sights).

As you can see once I start explaining it goes on for a while

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers