CM2 topic: turret speeds & the T-34

[Grisha]

"Okay, I motion that the T-34 in CM2 be armoured with thin sheets of lead, fire big wads of tar from the cannon on a non-turning turret, that the engine be fueled with a mixture of petrol and good, black dirt, and that it be crewed by four squirrel monkeys, but that only two monkeys may be in the turret. How many vote, 'Aye'?"

A large chorus rings out with "Aye!", then the BTS chairman counts the raised hands.

"And how many vote, 'Nay'?"

A horrendous, screaming cacophony erupts in the room. The BTS chairman makes several frustrated attempts at counting hands, then abruptly gives up.

"Since you monkeys won't keep still long enough for me to count your hands, I declare the motion passed!"

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

Best regards,

Greg Leon Guerrero

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Skipper]

Vyshe golovu, tovarisch! We have nowhere to withdraw, Moscow is behind us.

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-08-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

I think CM2 should simulate damage to traverse mechanisms. It would be a good sample of battle damage that could be caused with or without armor penetration, and could really handicap a tank, without having them be shocked or gun damaged.

Great IDEA!!!

In Tobruk (the OLD AH board game in the Dessert) there was a hit location that was identified as the "Turret Ring"

As the turret ring was known by all good tankers to be an area of weakness or vulnerability on MOST tanks, it is not surpising to learn that when and where possible a gunnner would aim for the turret ring. It also makes sense that there would be hits directly on the turret ring as it is generally in the same place as the "Center of Mass" which is ALSO what gunner's aim for.

So yes to simulate a tranverse mechanism knocked out would be VERY COOL I like it!

There should be a hit location identified as the Turret Ring, hits there could then result in:

1 Turrent Ring hit and penetration: Tank KO'd (obviously like a weak point penetration) or,

2 turret transverse knocked out, (1 crew casuality AND slower ROF!) or,

3 (highly unlikey) penetration without result, or,

4(equally unlikely) riccochet, no result.

YES to the inclusion of the TURRET RING and its resulting damage table.

Good suggestion I LIKE IT!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 02-08-2001).]

[The Commissar]

Heres a a question that must be answered:

How much will the T-34 cost in CM? Keeping in mind all these deficiencies, BTS must make it mighty cheap if it is to have the sort of success it did (at least in the later years of the war).

I assume it will surely be under 100. Then we go lower. 80? 70? 60? 50? That sounds pretty good keeping in mind the sheer amount of the machines used.

Suggestions?

BTS - Thanks for the info, Bastables, I guess the book I read wasnt exactly top of the line.

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Heres a a question that must be answered:

How much will the T-34 cost in CM? Keeping in mind all these deficiencies, BTS must make it mighty cheap if it is to have the sort of success it did (at least in the later years of the war).

I assume it will surely be under 100. Then we go lower. 80? 70? 60? 50? That sounds pretty good keeping in mind the sheer amount of the machines used.

Suggestions?

BTS - Thanks for the info, Bastables, I guess the book I read wasnt exactly top of the line.

Depends on which one you are talking about.

By the /85 model, most of these defincies had been ironed out. It had a radio, a three-man turret, etc., etc.

I would guess the cost of a T-34/85 should be about the same as a late model Sherman.

Jeff Heidman

[Skipper]

Early model Sherman, I'd say. But the general benchmark is right - these are the same class of tanks with similar production costs.

It is another story, that some german tanks are much cheaper in CM than they were in reallife , IMO.

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Early model Sherman, I'd say. But the general benchmark is right - these are the same class of tanks with similar production costs.

Remember, CM points cost is based only upon capability within the game, not production costs.

I would consider a T-34/85 to be about even with a Sherman 76. The Sherman has lsightly better AT performance, the T-34 has a little better armor and better HE performance.

An early model (75) Sherman is inferior to a T-34/85 in almost every way.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

As the turret ring was known by all good tankers to be an area of weakness or vulnerability on MOST tanks, it is not surpising to learn that when and where possible a gunnner would aim for the turret ring. It also makes sense that there would be hits directly on the turret ring as it is generally in the same place as the "Center of Mass" which is ALSO what gunner's aim for.

Partly correct tom - German AT gunners (before CavScout descends on me - I never spoke to a US At gunner, so I am not in the know and shall not discuss them ) were trained not to aim at the centre of mass but at the turret ring. In that case, even the measly 37mm would be able to disable a fairly decent tank. Of course, they would not actually destroy it, but a tank with the turret stuck will presumably make for home rather quickly. Unless it is commanded by some innovative young and brazen CMBO commander, who converts the crew into Insta-Infantry™, of course.

Sourse: a German AT gunner, who never had to face a T-34.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[The Commissar]

Good point, Jeff.

However, this will make things very hard for the Soviets. The reason they did so well against German armor later on in the war because they had so much of it. Sure, the quality itself improved severely, and the crew was probobly better trained, but still not on the level of what the Germans had.

Concentration of forces and sheer mass played a huge part, and was used very well by Zhukov in most cases. If a T-34/85 is to cost as much as, say, a Sherman, then half the fun of playing as the Soviets is gone! I want my waves of tanks! Waaah!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[illo]

However, this will make things very hard for the Soviets. The reason they did so well against German armor later on in the war because they had so much of it. Sure, the quality itself improved severely, and the crew was probobly better trained, but still not on the level of what the Germans had.

Concentration of forces and sheer mass played a huge part, and was used very well by Zhukov in most cases. If a T-34/85 is to cost as much as, say, a Sherman, then half the fun of playing as the Soviets is gone! I want my waves of tanks! Waaah! <http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif>

Crew quality has its effects on price too.

Dont worry Comissar

100 points for regular t-34/85 would sound ok?

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by rexford:

We did a search through photo's to identify K-O'd T34's with frontal penetrations, and have a difficult time of it. Based on the search the overwhelming % of knocked out T34 appeared to be from side hits.

A Soviet study on cause of loss in tanks to enemy action conducted in 1944 - 1945 reported that over 80% of Soviet tank losses resulted fron front turret penetrations, The report's findings led to the heavier armor on the IS-3 turret, but the IS-3 arrived to late to see action.

Concerning radios it should be added that all KV-1's were not equipped with radios Ie, the outdated 71-TK-3 sets, though many more KV's had radios then T-34's. It should also be added that it was common practice to eliminate the RO position due to personell shortages which led to most KV's Ie, 1942 haveing 3 - 4 man crews instead of 5.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 02-08-2001).]

[rexford]

John,

Thanks for data on most holed part of Russian tanks, 1944-45: turret front penetrations.

Good data.

The pictures we searched for T34 penetrations were 1941-1943, and most holes seemed to be on the sides.

[illo]

John, 1944 germans had guns good enough to punch through front turret. 1941-42 things were different.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by illo:

John, 1944 germans had guns good enough to punch through front turret. 1941-42 things were different.

8.8cm Flak 18 and 36.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest machineman]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Concentration of forces and sheer mass played a huge part, and was used very well by Zhukov in most cases. If a T-34/85 is to cost as much as, say, a Sherman, then half the fun of playing as the Soviets is gone!

I don't see the problem being the machinery that made the Soviet war machine so inefficient, more the enforced inflexibility on the part of commanders at all levels. I've read many German quotes commenting on this.

Just playing the Soviet side shouldn't need overwhelming numbers of tanks, should it?

Unless CM2 supplies a commissar with the disc to stand beside the computer with a Nakarov aimed at the back of your head...

[Bastables]

Eh? madness I say

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Bastables]

Bah humbug!

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by illo:

John, 1944 germans had guns good enough to punch through front turret. 1941-42 things were different.

In 42 the Germans had the various long 7,5cm guns (Pak 39/40, KwK 40 and StuK 40) which could kill the turret at long ranges and the long Pak/KwK 5cm which could kill T-34 turrets at sub 1000m ranges. Also in 1944 the Germans had guns which could punch through the glacis armour of T-34s yet still aimed at the turret. The kills through the turret is John's main point, in that the Germans would usually aim at it.

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

Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too!

But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

by Simon Fox

Mr T says "I pity the foo!"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Grisha]

With the exception of John Waters, and maybe a few other people, most posts are basing their statements with German sources alone. I think there needs to be a more balanced usage of Soviet sources in order to find the the most realistic assessment. To prove a point, if the kill claims of all the air forces that participated in WWII were combined they would've been several times the actual size of all combatant air forces combined.

Even by 1942 the Soviets were using very innovative means of defeating the Germans tactically. I remember one account in Loza's book. A Soviet tank formation had to re-take a village recently captured by German armor. What the Soviets did was ingenious. Knowing panzertruppen behavior, the Soviets waited while the German tanks formed in the village center. The Germans then left a single crew with their tank to stand watch while the rest quickly went into the houses to raid them for food and drink. The Soviet tank commander was an old hand at this and had already told the artillery unit to lay in a barrage onto the empty tanks. At the moment the panzertruppen were in among the houses, the Soviet tank commander ordered the artillery fire to commence, then ordered his unit to attack. What followed was almost anticlimactic. The single occupied tank was suppressed by artillery fire and easily taken out by the approaching tanks while the remaining panzertruppen were stuck in the houses, unwilling to run into an artillery barrage to get back into their tanks. Soviet infantry assets quickly overwhelmed the German crewmen in the houses, and the village was taken.

Now, I'm not saying the Soviets were all like this. Of course not. But I am saying the Soviets were anything but a walkover. Many commanders were unimaginative early in the war, but there were more than a few who were quite a match for the Wehrmacht. Yes, the Germans had the edge tactically over the Soviets throughout the entire war, and very much so in the early years. But the Soviets did have excellent commanders on all levels too with equipment that allowed them to make use of their talents.

I will keep repeating this as long as people continue to make use of inaccurate recollections from German commanders or generals. If you are going to use German sources, then find Wehrmacht AARs, or the like. Most German general memoirs don't even have the benefit of WWII German military archival backing.

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

Best regards,

Greg Leon Guerrero

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-09-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Grisha:

I will keep repeating this as long as people continue to make use of inaccurate recollections from German commanders or generals. If you are going to use German sources, then find Wehrmacht AARs, or the like. Most German general memoirs don't even have the benefit of WWII German military archival backing.

Grisha makes an excellent point, and I wish I could speak Russian or were in Germany (best would be both of these come true). The German generals wrote their memoirs from memory or personal notes in many cases, and what is more important, they had a serious axe to grind. It was of course very convenient for them that all blame for failure could be (and was) laid at Hitler's door. I would not consider Guderian's or Manstein's memoirs very credible sources on anything unless they are backed up by an independent source.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Skipper]

> I would not consider Guderian's or

> Manstein's memoirs very credible sources

> on anything unless they are backed up by

> an independent source.

LOL At least there is something we can agree on. For that matter, I would not consider any memoirs as a credible source per se - they are all full of "killing 30 tanks with a penknife" type of stories, shifting blame around, other deliberate or subconscious memory aberrations and all such things. It's memoirs PLUS operational documents of the period (or later statistical analysis thereof) PLUS books PLUS a heavy doze of critical thinking that gives you at least some understanding of past events. Even then, there are no two guys whose understanding is the same.

To all the guys who think that, for example, soviet commanders were generally dumb or inflexible because of "military purges": consider that it's not your own understanding, but somebody else's explanation which you have simply bought at par. Big historic events can never be understood through a simple and rational explanation.

[Guest machineman]

Originally posted by Skipper:

To all the guys who think that, for example, soviet commanders were generally dumb or inflexible because of "military purges": consider that it's not your own understanding, but somebody else's explanation which you have simply bought at par. Big historic events can never be understood through a simple and rational explanation.

Whoa here, let's not jump overboard. Even if you dismiss the general's memoirs out of hand (which does not seem reasonable either to me, they often give full credit to Soviet advantages), so Stalin's purges of the Red Army were all imagination? Siberia's gulags full of their OWN people another figment? Exterminating an entire class of Ukranians imagination?

And it wasn't just military purges. Has anyone here ever been to Communist countries and tried to get ANYTHING done? Buy a train ticket, get travel documents? Ever try and change anything? Slow, awkward, usually impossible.

How about the performance of armies modeled on the Soviet system after WWII? Say Syria, Egypt, Iraq? Guess what, rigid top down control, discouragement of individual initiative, wooden adherance to orders, inability to cope with changing battlefield situations. And guess what, the Israelis took full advantage using German style flexible tactics to win against overwhelming odds.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by machineman:

Whoa here, let's not jump overboard. Even if you dismiss the general's memoirs out of hand (which does not seem reasonable either to me, they often give full credit to Soviet advantages), so Stalin's purges of the Red Army were all imagination? Siberia's gulags full of their OWN people another figment? Exterminating an entire class of Ukranians imagination?

It’s ad hominem attacks; attack the biases of the person as opposed to the ideas themselves. Or the art of ignoring the idea in favour of attacking the source. It’s elegant in that one no longer has to argue against the idea itself since its presentation is considered or declared so faulty and marred.

I also like the usual post modernist trap of declaring that one cannot understand the world through meta-theories except through the meta-theories that all Meta theories are equally invalid/valid.

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

Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too!

But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

by Simon Fox

Mr T says "I pity the foo!"

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

This is pretty ass-back wards and dangerous for the crew. Presumably the gunners position was suspended from the turret rather than the hull...can you imagine the latter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

From: The Russian Military Zone: http://history.vif2.ru/t34_85_2.html

T-34-85

The absence of a rotating turret basket in the crew compartment was a consequence of the layout. In action, the loader worked while standing on the top of the ammunition crates stowed in the bottom of the tank. When the turret rotated, he had to move alongside the breech ring, and was hindered in doing so by the spent cases piled up there on the floor. During intensive firing, the piled-up cases made it difficult to get to the shells in their combat stowage in the bottom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PIII also lacked a turret basket. And was a hand cranked turret as well. Although I think that only the T-34-85 lacked a turret basket at this late stage of the war.

[Jeff Duquette]

Come on Greg. With some notable exceptions (ala the Siberian Army which had seen combat against the Japanese) it is not news that the lion's share of Soviet Units in 41-42 were both poorly trained and poorly lead. This is not an indictment of the average Russian Soldiers fighting potential. Throw an untrained big bruiser into the ring with a well trained, highly motivated, well lead ARMY and the bruiser is bound to get a bloody nose. Try putting a tank crew into a T34 that has barely completed basic training, let alone advanced individual training on tanks, and see how often they will be able hit targets, or how often they throw tracks, or weather they can even perform simple bore sighting on their weapons.

In my experience German general memoirs rarely are painting rosy pictures of the glorious exploits of the Whermacht. Quite the contrary. That is why these memoirs have historically been widely accepted as reliable sources of information. Try:

Von Luck's "Panzer Commander"

Von Melenthin's "Panzer Battles"

There were also numerous interviews conducted by the US Army with various German Generals and Staff Officers regarding Whermact Experiances on the East Front, and readily available in English for we non-German Reading folk.

Regarding Loza…he relays several hard to swallow tales in his "Commanding the Red Armies Shermans".

And no Greg, I'm not just pissed at you cause your kickin' my ass in our latest pbem game

Beastables:

When you say PIII, what are you referring too? The German Panzer III?