German tanks too flimsy?

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Using your "logic" from the Panther Turret Speed thread, I think you need to "now refute that they were not inferior to the Sherman and then will have something to discuss".

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, I was responding to your 'logic'.......

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 feild".

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

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-13-2000).]

[FABIO]

Ok German tanks weren't THIS bad!

Villers-Bocage (sp?) Tiger! scenario

The Fireflies have just shown up. I have 3 Tigers spread out on the same road as the FF's, with an average distance of 800m between me and 2 FF's. I saved the game and ran it, in the resulting shootout, after 40 seconds 2 Tigers were knocked out and another on fire, no losses for the Fireflies. I ran it again, and again, it varied between all the Tigers being wiped out and losing 2, but still no losses to the Fireflies. What the hell?? I'm going to start having to set up ambushes in the street and get these things when they round the corner at close range. These are tactics inferior light tanks use, not Tigers!

[Theron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FABIO:

Ok German tanks weren't THIS bad!

Villers-Bocage (sp?) Tiger! scenario

The Fireflies have just shown up. I have 3 Tigers spread out on the same road as the FF's, with an average distance of 800m between me and 2 FF's. I saved the game and ran it, in the resulting shootout, after 40 seconds 2 Tigers were knocked out and another on fire, no losses for the Fireflies. I ran it again, and again, it varied between all the Tigers being wiped out and losing 2, but still no losses to the Fireflies. What the hell?? I'm going to start having to set up ambushes in the street and get these things when they round the corner at close range. These are tactics inferior light tanks use, not Tigers!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fireflies are built to kill big tanks like the Tiger. I assume that you have no problem with the Tigers getting killed. It seems your problem is with none of the Fireflies getting hit.

From my playing experience the Tigers seem slow to aim and shoot (This very well could be historically accurate, I don't know). The turret speed of course effects this, but even after the turret is facing the enemy it seems to take them longer to shoot than other tanks. On the other hand the fireflies seem to shoot at a normal rate. They also have a faster turret than the tiger. Therefore the question to ask is how much did your tigers have to move their turrets to get off their shots? I bet they had to adjust their turrets and that the fireflies shot first.

Theron

[This message has been edited by Theron (edited 10-13-2000).]

[Priest]

So who wants to blindly charge with german tanks raise your smiley's

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FABIO:

Ok German tanks weren't THIS bad!

Villers-Bocage (sp?) Tiger! scenario

The Fireflies have just shown up. I have 3 Tigers spread out on the same road as the FF's, with an average distance of 800m between me and 2 FF's. I saved the game and ran it, in the resulting shootout, after 40 seconds 2 Tigers were knocked out and another on fire, no losses for the Fireflies. I ran it again, and again, it varied between all the Tigers being wiped out and losing 2, but still no losses to the Fireflies. What the hell?? I'm going to start having to set up ambushes in the street and get these things when they round the corner at close range. These are tactics inferior light tanks use, not Tigers!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you should use a different approach or set of tactics. To many German players seem to think that if they simply park their armor head-on with the enemy they will win. Sometimes it works and sometime, as in this case, it doesn't.

Cav

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

Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln.

[PeterNZer]

Yeah, they were that bad. Germanboy related one incident where a bunch of new german tanks were blown up by more experienced allied forces in fireflies and so on. Simply, the German forces deployed and acted 'wrong'. My guess is you didn't play well either, and were punished.

PeterNZ

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK,

Looks like we have another "I lost my German tank to an stupid American one, how can this be!?!" thread Not picking on anybody, but I do wish to point out that we have seen a LOT of these since the Beta Demo came out almost a year ago. As the first batch of responses indicated, CM dispells many of the myths about German armor invincibility that other wargames have bought into.

RMC wrote this:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The BTS test above clearly demonstrates something in the PZ IV outclasses the sherman at 1500m. Why this reason isn't a factor at 750m too is an intriguing mystery at the moment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the gun and the armor of the PzIV are outclass that of the Sherman armed with a 75 at that particular range. The first problem is that at 1500m range the short, low velocity 75 didn't have much of a chance to hit the PzIV. And if it did, the PzIV's armor was juuuuust thick enough (frontally) to withstand a hit (sometimes). The Sherman's armor (any side) was not thick enough to withstand a hit from the PzIV.

When range is reduced, everything changes. The killing power and accuracy of the Sherman start to get much better, while the PzIV's remains pretty much the same (i.e. it hits and kills just as effectively). This means the wide gap evident at 1500m is largely reduced. As for the reference to opitics, even the "pro German optics" camp agrees that at ranges of something like 700m any advantage a German tank MIGHT have is irrelevant for one or more reasons.

So... I do not see anything wrong with the way CM simulates any of this stuff. Bad tactics gets you killed. Pretty straight forward

Steve

P.S. PzIVs were considdered "out dated" by late 1943. In 1944 the Panther was supposed to replace all PzIVs, but production couldn't meet the demand, so the PzIV struggled on in spite of being more and more outclassed each day (overall, looking to the East).

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-13-2000).]

[Wilhammer]

Perhaps we need an "historically invulnerable death ray equipped" German tank option in future CMs?

This option would greatly help the "tactically challenged".

[Wilhammer]

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/9517/page34.html

Link describing a Tiger kill by an M-8 Armored Car.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Nice link!

Yes, this is something that people rarely think about. The rear armor of most tanks is thin enough that even the smallest AT gun could penetrate. The only question, in CM terms, is how realistic is it for players to go whizzing around with ACs in back of enemy AFVs. In general, not very realistic IMHO. But the results of such attacks (i.e. 37mm AP round killing a Tiger) is very realistic.

Steve

[RMC]

A Tiger from a 37mm? I can't get that to work. In VB my stuarts can't scratch the tigers. Plink, plink, plink and the TAC AI says to beat a retreat. When I tried this I was thinking of this incident. I was unable to repeat it.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

My apologies for even suggesting a German tank was not superior to an Allied one.

Das Panzerkampfwagen IV war das beste!

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez CavScout, you really are way too sensitive when somebody makes an INFORMED comment about the various tanks. PzKwI [ie not the tank ] AGREED with you that the standard PzKwIV in North Africa with its short barrel 75 mm gun WAS outclassed by the Sherman but when it received the high velocity long barrelled gun it became at least the equal of its Sherman counterpart. That's all he was saying.....SHEEESH.

Regards

Jim R.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Perhaps we need an "historically invulnerable death ray equipped" German tank option in future CMs?

This option would greatly help the "tactically challenged".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would it be called....a "Cheetah" perhaps?

Regards

Jim R.

[Wilhammer]

Cheetah....ROFL.

BTS, not realistic chasing a Tiger's rear end to kill it?

The fellow in the Cavalry link did just that, so it is realistic.

This link brings up another thing, light AFVs like Stuarts and M-24s and the Lynx really need their own category or, in the interim, need to be moved to the "Vehicles" column.

[Reuter]

Well I have read the whole topic and everyone seem to forget one thing.While Allied tankers were constantly adding extra armour to their vehicles the Germans just did the same.

By mid 1944 there were Tigers with front armour of 200mm and more and it did not stop there.Even Stugs and Panthers were "treated" the same way.

I spoke a former captain of a Britisch tankregiment who arrived in France on the second day of the invasion.He and his men had the latest versions of the Cromwell tank, some with six pounders, others with the 75 mmQFV.

They were taken to a beach where a Tiger had been towed too.They were told to fire at it from all angles from distances of 300m to a hundred meter.

To their surprise they were able to blow holes in it.Note that the Tiger was in very bad shape and at least had been penetrated for mumerous times.

Not long after that he and his men saw real action and to their surprise the Tigers they faced then were invulnerable both from the front and the sides.They had to adopt the old trick again of engaging a Tiger with four of their own:two tanks on top speed facing the devil and two outflanking it on both sides hoping they could come in its rear close enough to hit the engine and do damage.

Look I like this game but it is not very realistic because the designers certainly never saw the landscape in northern France,Belgium and Holland.Except for the Belgian Ardennes it is as flat as a kitchen table and you can have a LOS of 2km an even more.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Steve

P.S. PzIVs were considdered "out dated" by late 1943. In 1944 the Panther was supposed to replace all PzIVs, but production couldn't meet the demand, so the PzIV struggled on in spite of being more and more outclassed each day (overall, looking to the East).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve I agree, IMO the Sherman & PzKpfw IV lang & T-34-76 were outclassed by 1943 - 44 with the appearence of the Panther & T-34-85 etc, yet they fought on with upgrades due to neccesity, and did their jobs.

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. Febuary 1945.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

In "A Time for Trumpets," Macdonald describes how a Stuart took out a Panther with a side shot from close range. If I remember correctly, though, the Stuart wasn't hunting the Panther; it just sort of ran into it in the woods.

Tiger I's aren't invulnerable pillboxes; they do have a lot of armor (100 mm. or so, if I remember correctly), but it has basically no slope, which makes it much less efficient than it could be. After the Germans encountered the T-34 they began to appreciate the importance of sloped armor; that's why the Panther has it. Interestingly, the T-34 with it's 65 mm of frontal armor sloped at 60 degrees probably was probably substantially more effective than the Tiger I's armor; the Sherman, with its lesser (but still substantial slope) probably approached the effective armor of a Tiger I.

I'm not sure how this is modeled, concretely, in CM (I'm awaiting delivery of the full game), but the posts I read testing the Pz IV vs. a Sherman are consistent with the results I used to get when I did miniatures using Tank Charts.

Of course, the cool thing about real 3d modelling is there are all kinds of slope variables that can be taken into account, including both height (which should reduce the effective armor of a sloped glacis) and angle of shot (which would tend to increase it).

[Ari Maenpaa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

BTS, not realistic chasing a Tiger's rear end to kill it?

The fellow in the Cavalry link did just that, so it is realistic.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange things can happen in war.

Still I think it wouldn't be realistic to think that as a commander you would have armoured car crews just waiting to charge Tigers with their cars.

The mere presence of the Tiger would make most crews to decline to advance further.

They would just retreat and ask for backup.

That is realistic.

In "Company Commander" MacDonald writes about Sherman tanks that deserted their defence positions in Ardennes even before they saw any enemies. That only because they knew that "Tigers" were coming.

Heroes are rare.

Ari

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

Strange things can happen in war.

Still I think it wouldn't be realistic to think that as a commander you would have armoured car crews just waiting to charge Tigers with their cars.

The mere presence of the Tiger would make most crews to decline to advance further.

They would just retreat and ask for backup.

That is realistic.

In "Company Commander" MacDonald writes about Sherman tanks that deserted their defence positions in Ardennes even before they saw any enemies. That only because they knew that "Tigers" were coming.

Heroes are rare.

Ari<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree here, first off no US or allied tanker made a living, a long one anyway, by makeing it a practice of engageing Panthers or Tiger's frontaly, if you read the reports in instances vs a Panther, the SOP was for the most part that a whole plt would swarm the Panther with all the tanks fanning out, at high speed, and aproaching from diferent directions at once then they overwhelmed the Panther with fire from all aspects while accepting 1 or 2 or even 3 losses, or no losses at all, these tactics were what spawned the it, takes 5 Shemans to kill a Panther, or the variations of this we see quoted after the war.

As to AC's, Stuarts etc takeing on tanks yes it did happen, but rarely their wasn't any delusions that an AC or a Stuart was going to be used in a tank killer role, in RL use of those vehichles to directly engage medium tanks would qualify as a suicide mission.

In games, this can't realy be simulated, as the CRT codeing tells the unit it can kill a tank, at least from certian ranges, so it tries its darndest Ie, how many times in games have you seen an AI greyhound attempt to duke it out with a Panther? or an AI Puma engage a Jumbo?, in these cases for the most part the AI just has them sit their fireing away, even when the rounds have no effect, then dying when the tank decides its had enough harrassment, at least with a human player I have seen them use AC's & Stuarts to flank etc and attempt to get a rear or side armor kill.

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. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Tiger]

Then there was the time where a Stuart took out my Tiger I late with a hit at the "weak point" on the front turrent. You wouldn't think the Stuart's gun could even penetrate the weak point on the front of a Tiger I's turrent.

[FABIO]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer:

Yeah, they were that bad. Germanboy related one incident where a bunch of new german tanks were blown up by more experienced allied forces in fireflies and so on. Simply, the German forces deployed and acted 'wrong'. My guess is you didn't play well either, and were punished.

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 of the Tigers I had were Veteran, the other was Whitman, who is an elite. The Firefly crews are green. It was a straight shootout at 800m, front armor only facing the enemy. I always thought the Tiger was an open country tank best suited for long range engangements, which this was. All 3 Tigers had their turrets facing right at them at the start of the turn. I can accept one Tiger, maybe even 2 getting taken out under those circumstances, but ALL THREE? And not ONE Firefly getting destroyed (in all 3 attempts)? I'm not a Panzerphile that thinks German armor should be invincible to anything short of a 15 inch battleship gun, but this seems very very wrong.

[Diceman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reuter:

Look I like this game but it is not very realistic because the designers certainly never saw the landscape in northern France,Belgium and Holland.Except for the Belgian Ardennes it is as flat as a kitchen table and you can have a LOS of 2km an even more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can make the maps as realistic as you want them to be. I think it would be interesting to play a game with an accurate map with the open terrain the Brit's, Poles, and Canadians had to deal with in Normandy. Unfortunately I've never been there, nor have I seen good pictures to help me do it myself. Having said that open terrain scenarios may not catch many peoples interest. Play balance will loose to reality on the eastern side of Normandy. Not much fun unless you're the Germans. Who you gonna get to play the Allies? I'd play it just to get a historic feel of what Montgomery was up against, but I suspect I'm the exception to the rule.

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reuter:

Look I like this game but it is not very realistic because the designers certainly never saw the landscape in northern France,Belgium and Holland.Except for the Belgian Ardennes it is as flat as a kitchen table and you can have a LOS of 2km an even more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And funnily enough, those are the areas that saw almost no fighting, now I wonder why that is... Beyond the Seine to the Albert Canal the Germans did not bother to defend, because they had no troops left. So while the Pas de Calais is indeed flat as a pan, that did not matter at all. And many other areas of France and Germany that were fought over are absolutely not flat and have no LOS at all. And if you think that the country west of Caen is flat, I would recommend visiting, that is not what I heard. Also, the way the countryside in Europe looks today is very different to fifty years ago. There have been large-scale reorganisations in land-ownership, and measures to rationalise and increase agricultural productivity in the 1950s and 1960s. These included ripping out hedges left right and centre,, turning meandering streams with wooded sides into canals with no cover, thus creating unlimited vision across the field that did not exist in the 1940s. And finally, if you don't like it, why don't you do your own scenarios?

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

Andreas

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Nice link!

Yes, this is something that people rarely think about. The rear armor of most tanks is thin enough that even the smallest AT gun could penetrate. The only question, in CM terms, is how realistic is it for players to go whizzing around with ACs in back of enemy AFVs. In general, not very realistic IMHO. But the results of such attacks (i.e. 37mm AP round killing a Tiger) is very realistic.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must chime in here.

I fully agree with Steve that at ranges around 700 meters both sides had no noticable advantge due to optics and flat flight path trajectories of the rounds they fired so that no big deal, at that point in the war.

BUT when Steve says:

" The only question, in CM terms, is how realistic is it for players to go whizzing around with ACs in back of enemy AFVs."

If you are the Allies, sometimes your ONLY chance to take these big german tanks down is to distract them with 'zooks in the front and hopfully run something fast and light like an AC or a Stuart around the back to kill it with a rear shot, and yes sometimes that Stuart or AC does go on a VERY risky mission (if not suicidal) to get the chance to pump a round into the rear of a big german tank, but sometimes that is your ONLY hope as there are plenty of battles and scenario's where the Allies are presented with the frontal aspect of tanks like tigers panthers and KT's that they have NO chance of penetrating with ANY weapon at there disposal unless it is at VERY close range, so the challenge the allied player faces is HOW to manouver to get the juicy flank or rear shot. So I conclude that

there are many times when it is " realistic (snip) for players to go whizzing around with ACs in back of enemy AFVs"

Especially for the Allies.

I think that CM models this kind of reality very well, I play the Allies mostly there are some VERY good German tanks that are almost impossible to kill frontally with reg short 75 mm's in Reg sherm's. Now the sweat little 4 man, Firefly with the 76 is another story.

German players don't fret, I think this aspect of the game at close ranges less than 1000 meters WORKS very well.

-tom w

[Wilhammer]

Cirl sent me an email from a guy doing reseaarch for an upcoming game called "TCS-Armor".

He mentions a tactic used by American tankers wherein they did a calvary like charge into a group of uber tanks shooting from the hip, they dashed through, blasting away, did a U-turn and came back. They took advantage of slow turrets and fast living as well acknowledging the need to flank attack the German uber-tanks.

As soon as we get the guy's permission, we will verbatim post it here.