US Tungsten Availablity in 1.1

[Jeff Heidman]

I did a little research on how available tungsten is to the allies in version 1.1. Since the use was fixed, the Allies get a lot more use out of tungsten.

I went month-by-month, and looked at 4 classes of US tanks: M4 Sherman 76, M4E2 Sherman Jumbo 76, M10/M18 TDs, and the Pershing models. I took nultiple (25+) examples of each class (mixed up the M4 models), and then averaged the result.

Note that the dispersion is pretty high. For example, the average for the Ligth TDs in Feb. 1945 was 3.65 rounds per gun. There were several without any, and several with 6 or more.

M4 Sherman 76:

Jun-44 NA

Jul-44 0

Aug-44 0

Sep-44 0.75

Oct-44 1.3

Nov-44 1.47

Dec-44 1.37

Jan-45 2.1

Feb-45 2.8

Mar-45 2.77

Apr-45 2.93

May-45 2.27

M4 Jumbo 76:

Jun-44 NA

Jul-44 NA

Aug-44 NA

Sep-44 NA

Oct-44 0.9

Nov-44 1.2

Dec-44 1.3

Jan-45 0.9

Feb-45 2.4

Mar-45 2.1

Apr-45 2.6

May-45 2.5

M18/M10 TD:

Jun-44 0

Jul-44 0

Aug-44 0

Sep-44 3.1

Oct-44 2.65

Nov-44 3.45

Dec-44 3

Jan-45 3.65

Feb-45 3.65

Mar-45 4.6

Apr-45 4.35

May-45 3.75

Pershing (M26/T26)

Jun-44 NA

Jul-44 NA

Aug-44 NA

Sep-44 NA

Oct-44 NA

Nov-44 NA

Dec-44 NA

Jan-45 NA

Feb-45 5.1

Mar-45 4

Apr-45 4.5

May-45 3.8

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-16-2001).]

[Dittohead]

Looks Good, you would think Sept. would be somewhat lean with supplies still catching up to the front lines.

How about the British?

[Basebal351]

Interesting results Jeff, and I appreciate the time you put into looking up such a thing as that. Does anyone have data, or figures, on the average number of rounds of tungsten given out to tanks?? I certainly have no idea, but I'm sure there are many, more intelligent, people on this board who could enlighten me.

I think I might have missed the tungsten discussion the first time around.

Thanks,

Jim

[Jeff Heidman]

My gut feeling is that those seem pretty high, especially for the M4 units. By late in the war, almost every single M4(76) had at least 2 rounds of HVAP.

I would be interested in what BTS used as a source to come up with whatever formula they used.

This essentially removes much of the advantage that German tanks had in hard-hitting guns, especially when you consider that in the typical CM engagement you rarely get off more than a few rounds anyway.

But I have no hard numbers to back up that feeling.

Jeff Heidman

[patboivin]

I still think that tungsten is given too much of an emphasis in CM, in ASL that wasn't the case, if I remember correctly.

I talked with some friends over Christmas, and it was pretty obvious to us that the Shermans are overly powerful. esp. when we read that sometimes it took four Shermans to take out one Tiger.

This is an American game, though. I don't know if that played a part?

[Dittohead]

Another item that is being overlooked is the availability of tungsten to US 76mm towed AT guns. I saw a thread the other day questioning if the AT gun shot tungsten as quickly as the tanks.

Just did a quick sample of Aug 44, Sept and Oct 44.

Using 9 guns.

Aug - No tungsten

Sept - anywhere from 5 to 0 rds. total 20 rds

Oct. - same 5-0 rds but 23 total.

It would seem odd that AT guns would have priority on the tungsten. But sounds like 5 rds would be excessive. I would think 1 max.

[Basebal351]

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

This is an American game, though. I don't know if that played a part?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Yeah, this game and forum does seem to take a bit of a "U-571" slant on things at times!!

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

"...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

[WolfLord]

Now if only someone could dig up those figures on PzGr40 for the Germans...

I did manage to get a PzGr40 round diagram though...very interesting.

[Vanir]

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

I talked with some friends over Christmas, and it was pretty obvious to us that the Shermans are overly powerful. esp. when we read that sometimes it took four Shermans to take out one Tiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realize you may have been joking here. Otherwise if you have any actual data showing that Shermans are incorrectly modeled in CM, print it here.

Jeff, in another thread someone posted that the US produced 10,000 tungsten rounds per month and you asked where he got this. I did a little digging and it comes from the book "Sherman" by R.P. Hunnicutt.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[JoePrivate]

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

I realize you may have been joking here. Otherwise if you have any actual data showing that Shermans are incorrectly modeled in CM, print it here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been stated already by Charles the slope modifiers for 76HVAP and the armour resistance for the Jumbo need to be corrected.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff, in another thread someone posted that the US produced 10,000 tungsten rounds per month and you asked where he got this. I did a little digging and it comes from the book "Sherman" by R.P. Hunnicutt.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I am much more interested in what the reasoning was behind the claim that non-TD units had x amount per tank.

Hopefully Steve or Charles will chime in and let us know where they got their numbers from.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[Vanir]

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

It's been stated already by Charles the slope modifiers for 76HVAP and the armour resistance for the Jumbo need to be corrected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but that's a bug, not a deliberate design decision. Although I will be glad when it is fixed, that one bug doesn't really alter the overall balance very much.

Jeff, in my digging the closest thing I found to an official BTS response was here.

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

Guy, to be honest Im not all that sure that Tungsten availability at the moment is really that high? Remember, Tungsten isnt available to US tankers at all before September, and between October to December it really isnt all that common for Sherman 76mm's to carry them (they usually get 1 or 2 rounds, if any, from my tests). Once you hit '45 though, this is reasonable evidence to suggest that Tunsten was becoming available in considerably higher quantity, and thus in CM you will see it more often.

Tungsten availability in CM is based on the best figures Charles concluded from his research, though this sort of data is hard to come by. If you guys have any factual evidence to indicate that CM's data is not correct, please let us know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[von Lucke]

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

Jeff, in another thread someone posted that the US produced 10,000 tungsten rounds per month and you asked where he got this. I did a little digging and it comes from the book "Sherman" by R.P. Hunnicutt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was me, and you are correct: "Sherman, a History of the American Medium Tank" by R.P. Hunnicut, to be exact.

Also, in "Sherman Medium Tank, 1942-1945" by Zaloga and Sarsen, is where I found the bit about 2-3 rounds of HVAP being available to Shermans, and upwards of 5 for TD units.

[Jarmo]

One thing to remember about the 10 000 rounds/month figure is, it wouldn't be (completely) cumulative.

The shots would be used too, and a lot of it would burn unused in the destroyed tanks.

One might estimate a total of 40 000 in circulation in a given time (might be way off).

How many Tank Destroyers there were? How many AT guns?

Would the tungsten be distributed in equal shares to all?

How much would trickle down to Shermans?

I don't have good answers to any of these.

[Slapdragon]

The book "Seven-Six-One" by Borden, based on interviews with surviving members of that unit and then placed to a fictionalized story (ignore the story line, look at the background information) has the supply train of that unit getting tungsten by hook or crook, calling in personal favors, getting it from a different Army supply group, and in general trying like heck to make sure every tank had one or two in their shell racks for a rainy day. A second source for this same unit, a history by David Williams called "Hit Hard" also mentions this obliquely.

It is possible though that this battalion was unique though and no other US tank battalions saw the advantage of this round over AP. Patton issued something like 8 orders, one very terse, forbiding US tankers from carrying HVAP (he wanted to make sure most of it went to the M18 units) (Patton in the Lorraine Valley: A Case Study). If Pattons continual issuing of orders is to be believed, no M4s in the 3rd Army ever used them.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

If Pattons continual issuing of orders is to be believed, no M4s in the 3rd Army ever used them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or: lots of them carried Tungsten, and that is why he had to order it again and again, because the order was ignored.

What I still don't understand is the issue of TO&E consistency here - if as a matter of TO&E US tanks did not have Tungsten at a particular point in time, and if CM is designed based on TO&E (as it is for the number of BARs in a squad), than should the number of Tungsten rounds not be according to TO&E and not to reports of scrounging? I don't really care one way or the other, since I don't think it is a big deal, but it puzzles me.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Jarmo]

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

What I still don't understand is the issue of TO&E consistency here<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a mention earlier (on some small arms thread) that BTS has made several alterations

to the units to better reflect reality. Troops carrying more BAR's than TO&E, and other stuff.

So consistency is not threatened.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

There was a mention earlier (on some small arms thread) that BTS has made several alterations

to the units to better reflect reality. Troops carrying more BAR's than TO&E, and other stuff.

So consistency is not threatened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Passed me by - I read (admittedly months ago) some vigorous defense of the TO&E approach. Did not know that had changed.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Jeff Heidman]

Great replies everyone.

As far as the TO&E bit is concerned, I have not seen that at all (that BTS changes TO&Es based on "scrounging" and such). Just look at Allied squad make up. There is only a single type, and they carry 10 M1s, an SMG, and a single BAR.

It is not a hugely big deal, it just seems like the standards are a little different. I would like to see a few more Allied squad types, but perhaps we are mixing up our issues.

The response from KrazyDog was nice, but not overly illuminating. He basically said that Charles did some research, and if you can find evidence that he was incorrect, lets see it. That is fine, but it pre-supposes there is evidence to be found. If there is little or none in either direction, then it would be fallacious to assume that Charles is correct by default.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the books in question. but I am re-assured that there are some actual sources out there citing numbers in the range we have seen.

One of the biggest surprises to me was the very high availability to the Pershings.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-17-2001).]

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

As far as the TO&E bit is concerned, I have not seen that at all (that BTS changes TO&Es based on "scrounging" and such). Just look at Allied squad make up. There is only a single type, and they carry 10 M1s, an SMG, and a single BAR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite true. US infantry in '45 are given 9 M1s, a SMG and 2 BARs. I remember BTS saying that this was not official TO&E but reflected widespread scrounging.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Not quite true. US infantry in '45 are given 9 M1s, a SMG and 2 BARs. I remember BTS saying that this was not official TO&E but reflected widespread scrounging.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool. I was unaware of that.

Jeff

[Chupacabra]

Quick note - Jeff, thanks for doing the research. I posted a thread about this a few weeks ago and basically, the official answer was that the amount of tungsten for US tanks is historical. I still feel this is incorrect.

FWIW, I agree with the TO&E argument. I have no doubt that tank crews did scrounge tungsten rounds from TDs, but because of the nature of the beast, I don't see how this can be quantified in any meaningful way. Moreover, I have not read any accounts of American tanks (non-TD) using tungsten in battle. Again, doesn't mean it did not happen, in fact I'm sure it did, but it would seem to indicate that it did not happen with the frequency it happens in CM.

Once again, I think that the change to make tanks use tungsten when they have it is a good one. But I do think the numbers are somewhat out of whack. Can I prove this? No, of course not, for the same reasons that I don't think BTS can prove that the average US tank was toting around 2-3 t rounds by late '44.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Guest KwazyDog]

"Can I prove this? No, of course not, for the same reasons that I don't think BTS can prove that the average US tank was toting around 2-3 t rounds by late '44."

Exactly! So the question really is...who is right?

Honestly, this isn't my field, so I don't know the answer, but it seems we've really come to a point where no evidence has been produced to sway the argument either way. I do believe that CM does assume some scrounging by standard Sherman crews though.

Ok, so what I can do guys is pass on this thread to Charles in case he has missed it and there has been any points put forward that haven't been taken into consideration in CM's current calculations.

And please keep posting any info of interest guys!

Dan

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

Also, in "Sherman Medium Tank, 1942-1945" by Zaloga and Sarsen, is where I found the bit about 2-3 rounds of HVAP being available to Shermans, and upwards of 5 for TD units.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you could post the part of the book that states that verbatim, it could be real useful.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Simon Fox]

Here you go Jeff, the two BARs.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000377.html

I came across this little gem too:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013436.html

Germanboy was in fine fettle, he seems a bit more bitter and twisted these days

OK carry on. Just leave the Brits out of it.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.