Long Range Tiger Fire Against Guns

[rexford]

The following site has an interesting discussion of how Tigers were used against anti-tank guns, and Russian comments on Tiger tank optics quality and gun accuracy:

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/monyushko/monyushko2.htm

"After short but powerful artillery raids the Germans would attack with their armor. Heavy AFVs, Tigers and Ferdinands, ascended hills deep inside the German positions and stopped 1-1.5 kilometers from our own positions. The lighter and more maneuverable Pz.IV's continued to advance together with small numbers of infantry. It made little sense for us to fire at the AFVs deployed in the rear. Even in case of a direct hit the shell couldn't cause serious damage at such range. But German tankers waited until our anti-tank battery was forced to open fire at the tanks advancing in the front. A gun that opened fire, exposed itself, immediately fell victim to a well aimed shot from the stationary heavy AFVs. It must be noted that Tigers had very precise sights and very accurate 88mm guns."

Given a long clear line of fire, it appears that Tigers could be very effective against guns. Reports of Tiger damage to Russian forces usually include a healthy number of guns, tanks and motor vehicles.

The Tiger fired HE rounds at 810 m/s, which is higher than the Panther (700 m/s) and Tiger II (750 m/s), which might account for the accuracy against guns.

[lcm1947]

Interesting post Rexford and as always useful information and just confirms why the Tiger is such an awlsome tank and killer of my fine allied troops. I really don't see how anybody could stand up to these monsters. Guess they did though.

[rexford]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Interesting post Rexford and as always useful information and just confirms why the Tiger is such an awlsome tank and killer of my fine allied troops. I really don't see how anybody could stand up to these monsters. Guess they did though.

Go to following site for a very intelligent discussion of tank combat in general, and Tigers in one case:

http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

Note the following tactic used to defeat Tigers with TWO RUSSIAN SHERMANS, something the Allies never thought of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"What would you like to say about the German Tiger?

- It was an extremely heavy vehicle. The Sherman could never defeat a Tiger with a frontal shot. We had to force the Tiger to expose its flank. If we were defending and the Germans were attacking, we had a special tactic. Two Shermans were designated for each Tiger. The first Sherman fired at the track and broke it. For a brief space of time the heavy vehicle still moved forward on one track, which caused it to turn. At this moment the second Sherman shot it in the side, trying to hit the fuel cell. This is how we did it. One German tank was defeated by two of ours, therefore the victory was credited to both crews. There is a story about this entitled "Hunting With Borzois" in my book."

Russians out thought and out fought the Americans and Allies in the above case when it came to Tigers! Allies expected to lose several Shermans getting a Tiger, Russians tried not to lose any!

[Jack Carr]

Good post. Interesting information. I noticed that you posted this under the CMBO forum and not the CMBB forum. Funny though as the Tiger tanks accurate main gun is not modeled to be as accurate as it should be in CMBO. In CMBB they appear to have corrected this in the game engine.

I enjoy playing both games but often get frustrated when veteran tankers with good guns/optics can't hit the broadside of a barn under 500 meters. I realize that I am not supplying any examples, screenshots, specifics but it is certainly why I am now playing CMBB far more than CMBO.

Good post. I'll try and put these tactics to use against the Red Army in CMBB. The tactics that you describe most certainly would not work in CMBO. The main gun accuracy just isn't there.

[Maj. Battaglia]

In both McKee's "Caen: Anvil of Victory" and Reynolds's "Steel Inferno" there are references to Commonwealth tank attacks in Normandy coming under fire from Tigers at long range. Of course, there is never confirmation that they were indeed Tigers. I'm sorry I can't give page numbers, as the indices in these books don't help me find the passages I remember.

But when I read these I was thinking about such German tactics in terms of CM:BO, and how difficult it is with the maps we use to incorporate them. The maps represent the main thrust of the attacks and unfortunately long range fire from the flanks isn't usually included.

I suppose you could with a map 4000m wide, and through terrain and setup restrictions force the attacker into a 1000 - 1500m wide advance on one extreme. Then give the Germans some flanking units that can only set up on the other extreme.

I've played a lot of scenarios and not come across one like this.

In CM:BO the Tiger has a disadvantage in that, generally speaking, opposing forces have closed to a range (before the action begins) where they have a chance of hitting and killing it. Any long range sniping by the Tiger is considered to have already happened.

[Dandelion]

I am afraid that even if You did make maps with historical ranges, it would not help the Tiger in CM.

You see, I am quite convinced that the range and accuracy of this barrel is not reflected in the game.

Using the German Panzer inspectors AAR compilations of 1944 (which included 43 as appendix), I made scenarios reflecting the typical engagements as experienced by the Germans. This included detailed ranges, barrels and to-hit ratio, but I ignored kill-ratio (as it is very difficult to understand what the targets were, except for size and mobility). The CM results are nothing like the AAR results. The main difference being:

- German long range accuracy is not even half that claimed by the AAR, meaning the medium number of shots needed to hit a target at a certain range. This refers to both mobile and stationary targets.

- The difference between German and Western allied long range accuracy is not what it is claimed to be in the AAR. I have had problems establishing a percentage difference, but I generally felt there was a 20 percent deviance from AAR reports, to allied advantage. This may not be a very useful fact though, as German compilation began before the allies had landed in Normandy, and thus all German experience of West was from Africa and Italy by this time. Compilations for late 44 and 45 were never completed, but I know they are published nonetheless in a German book, that I however have yet to get my hands on.

My conclusion was that vehicles such as the Tiger but above all the Jagd- series cannot be used in their intended role in the CM engine. Namely that of hiding hull-down and firing at long range - a situation where lack of turret and poor side and rear armour has no meaningful effect. The situation requires accuracy to hit within one to three shots, after which position must be changed.

Of course, if you do not hit at all at such ranges, or hit the equal amount as the enemy, the whole idea rather backfires. You become just like the enemy, except you have no turret, no speed and exposed side and rear.

Dandelion

PS. It must have required some extremely cool tank crews to kill Tigers the way described with the Shermans. I wonder how many survived those attempts. Still, if you have no other choice...and Shermans were used mainly by the 1st Guards...

[Dandelion]

....of course, the range problem does not only concern tanks and guns.

The normal engagement range for German infantry, as reflected by experience and incorporated in training, was 200 meters. In a defensive position, the enemy was never to be allowed to close to less than 200 meters before engaged. In a delaying defence, the enemy would be engaged at extreme distance, judged 800-1000 meters for infantry (rifle, mg infantry). 200 meters was considered assault range and the enemy was to be denied this. Of course, in CM, 200 meters is an extreme range for infantry, with little if any damage capacity.

For comparison, in ASL the regular German line infantry has effective range up to about 250 meters. The extreme range is some 500 meters. Point blank is some 50 meters. The light machinegun fires effectively to almost 300 meters, extreme limit being some 550 meters.

In the CMBO engine, meaningful results occur at 100 meters at the farthest, and usually only to targets moving in the open. That is in spite the fact that squads have their inherent light machinegun. Most combat occurs at point blank range. Given the limited amount of ammunition carried versus the need for results, it has to.

There was a telling episode within the CMMC 1 where regular German traning manuals were simply converted into CM text. Very little turned out to be useful, as hardly anything of infantry tactics worked in CM for varying reasons - range problems being one important. The dismal performance of the focal, all important MGs being another very important reason. It was said then that all of this would be corrected in CMBB. Maybe it is, I do not own it.

The Germans are not the main losers in the range error, the British are, with their range-and-accuracy/rifle-focused infantry which never come in to its own. Winners would be the Americans with their plethora of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

The conclusion for CMBO for the time being is that:

- Dont use turretless tanks and

- The Tiger is still a useful battering ram but not worth the cost and

- Use smg infantry, skip rifle and machinegun units and

- engage at point blank.

Dandelion

[Maj. Battaglia]

Dandelion,

I found the same thing with long range Tiger fire. I was playing around with a scenario where the two Tigers indict an allied attack with fire to the attacks flank. I found that at a range of 3500 m or so there were pretty much no hits, and even when there were, even the 88mm shell would riccochet.

At ranges between 2000 and 3000 m it would often take a number of shots to secure a hit, but the Allied attack, with 7 tanks, was stopped with all tanks knocked out after about 10 - 15 turns.

I also don't own CM:BB. I need a new computer, and fast. But I hear the optics are better for many German AFVs.

[Soddball]

Yes, in CM:BB you'll really hear the Tiger roar. What was more surprising for me was the punishing my StuGs hand out in CM:BB - knocking out IS-2 tanks at under 500m and routinely carving up entire T-34 platoons.

[Dandelion]

Hm. Sigh. Well, looks like Ill have to buy CMBB after all then...

Did they fix the machinegun problem too?

If so, would there be a patch incoming to fix it in CMBO too?

Dandelion

[Silvio Manuel]

Word around the campfire is that the AT model for CMBO is only effective out to about 1500m or so, after that the results you'll see are not really accurate... I'm not sure if BFC admits this but it is the general consensus, AFAIK.

I would think that this is surely corrected for CMBB.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Hm. Sigh. Well, looks like Ill have to buy CMBB after all then...

Did they fix the machinegun problem too?

If so, would there be a patch incoming to fix it in CMBO too?

Dandelion

Machine guns are definetly fixed in CMBB, very deadly.

CMBO was one of the best games i've ever played, but since CMBB showed up in my mailbox, i've never played a single game of CMBO.

I would highly suggest buying it.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

CMBO was one of the best games i've ever played, but since CMBB showed up in my mailbox, i've never played a single game of CMBO.

Same here, except when I play a QB-combo where I take similar forces at same time. Eg. how a VG company fairs defending a village against Allied combined forces assault in February 1945, both on east and west fronts? It's fun, except that I find CMBB so much better.

[Dandelion]

Yes. Problem is, I feel the Eastern Front has a depressing quality to it. I must say I am much more interested in the war in the West. The dream then, for me, would be a patch (I'd buy it) for CMBO upgrading it to CMBB standard. Shouldn't be too hard to make one. Can't see that there are all that many differences between the two systems (of course, I have only played the demo of CMBB).

Dandelion

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Yes. Problem is, I feel the Eastern Front has a depressing quality to it. I must say I am much more interested in the war in the West. The dream then, for me, would be a patch (I'd buy it) for CMBO upgrading it to CMBB standard. Shouldn't be too hard to make one. Can't see that there are all that many differences between the two systems (of course, I have only played the demo of CMBB).

Battlefront has stated they've got no interest in doing a CMBO remake, they rather move on to do the Desert/Mediterranean and Early War sequels before they'd even consider it. But that's war in the west, in any case (France '40 and '44, what's the difference?)...

What they maybe COULD do, and I'd find much more interesting than a re-run of CMBO (which to me has only little appeal alone), is to have one game extending from North Africa to Germany and another game from Poland to Crete.

It might be difficult to have such a huge timeframe and many theaters to squeeze into two games. Poland to Crete, that would include at least German, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, French (independent, Vichy and Free), British, Italian, Yugoslav, Greek and Romanian armies in Poland, Norway, France/Benelux and Balkans, while North Africa to Berlin would have Italians, Brits & Commonwealth minors, Germans, US, Free Poles & French and Vichy French in North Africa, Italy and Germany. But those games will in any case be very comprehensive, and much of the data for Germans they already do have, and the Beyond Overlord data they just need to update.

Of course, I'm not BFC and I don't actually have to do anything more challenging than to pay for the next game they push out.

[Dandelion]

What is a BFC? Apart from Bataillon Fusiliers de Chasse of course

I would also like to see the packages of which you write. And I'd buy them too.

Though I have problems accepting that it would take a remake of CMBO to get it to CMBB level. These two titles do not appear to be different enough to be separate games. They are like The Sims series - slight upgrades, bunch of new graphics, a few new functions and a totally new setting, same engine but tweaked a bit for improvement. I mean, both games use the same old ASL system as far as I can see. Having monitored the development of this game almost since it started (missed the first 6 months), I feel the differences between CMBO and CMBB are not even remotely as many as the differences between the intial series of models for CMBO.

But anyway, if they feel so strongly about it, let them move on to their next project in peace. I still feel they could issue a limited CMBO patch adjusting the few really serious issues, such as optics and accuracy and above all machineguns. These are errors and ought to have been adjusted in the patch we already have. It would take very little work and I would not be the only one willing to pay for it. It would probably be smaller work than the 102 patch was, and they did that one for free.

Dandelion

[Sergei]

BFC = Battlefront.com, the way they now want themselves to be called (for BTS is just Charles & Steve, while BFC covers the whole development team and publisher).

Originally posted by Dandelion:

I still feel they could issue a limited CMBO patch adjusting the few really serious issues, such as optics and accuracy and above all machineguns. These are errors and ought to have been adjusted in the patch we already have. It would take very little work and I would not be the only one willing to pay for it. It would probably be smaller work than the 102 patch was, and they did that one for free.

Well maybe they could do a very limited patch for some issues, but I just don't think they are gonna. Right now even making the final 1.03 patch for fixing some CMBB bugs that 1.02 didn't fix is like drinking tar, because they would so much rather just get on. When they first published CMBO, they had to spend a lot of time patching it up (most importantly adding TCP/IP), which diverted them from work on CMBB for months. And now they're again desperate about finishing the work with CMBB - I really, really doubt they would even consider making a patch for CMBO, even if you paid them.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

I've played a lot of scenarios and not come across one like this.

I have one which was never released, happy to email it to you.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

I've played a lot of scenarios and not come across one like this.

I have one which was never released, happy to email it to you. </font>