CM Armor Facts

[Jack Trap]

I'm curious what medium American tank test best against a Hetzer, tow to tow. I would appreciate any feedback.

[offtaskagain]

At close range, a Jumbo with the 76 gun kicks Hetzer ass. Good kill chance for Jumbo, none for Hetzer.

[Treeburst155]

To kill a Hetzer with any regularity using American armor you would have to go to the 90mm Tank Destroyers (M36 Jackson). The American 76mm with or without tungsten doesn't quite cut it. Now the British Comet, Challenger, or Firefly may be a different story.

Yes, the Hetzer does need some tests run on it since one sees it quite often. I think I'll test the Comet against the Hetzer next.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Jack Trap]

Well, that would be good information for those using British units. I was hoping for some insight from the American medium armour perspective.

Running some far-from-scientific experiments of my own, when faced with a Hetzer tow-to-tow, nothing (American) less than the jumbo is worth a damn, ruling out flanking. I just watched the 75 mm gun ricochet 3 times in a row off the Hetzer hull AT 25 METERS!!!!

Tank killers are great, given first shot or good distance.

Any thoughts on this?

[Treeburst155]

With the US only the 90mm tank destroyers, Jumbos and Pershings can take out a Hetzer regularly. Without those you will have to flank 'em or play the British. The Hetzer flank is weak enough if you can get to it.

Treeburst155 out.

[Jack Trap]

Agreed.

At 83 points, the Hetzer is a deal hard to pass up, or ignore when playing against the Axis.

I've tried a couple of different situations in test mode. The best way is to simply provide a multiple of targets while flanking this beast. If that means running Steward's right up it to its face, then its best to provide

some savoury targets in another direction.

[JasonC]

I ran a series of interesting tests pitting easy 8 76mm Shermans against Hetzers, with 5 of the Shermans vs. 3 Hetzers - the historical platoon sizes. The outcome of the fight turns on the range window.

At 1500 yards, the Hetzers lose to the Shermans, though the Shermans lost 2 tanks. That far away, the armor on the easy eight (just a (W) style M4A3) is good enough that only the turret can be penetrated by the Hetzer's 75mm, from the front that is. Meanwhile, the Shermans can kill the Hetzers with a lower hull hit. The Hezter's LH is vunerable because their the slope is only 40 degrees, and with armor quality included the effective thickness is only 51mm. The Hetzers have a higher hit probability against the larger Sherman (60% higher sillouette), but the numbers and slower rate of fire make up for this.

At 400 yards or less, the 76mm has enough punch to get through the Hetzer's upper hull. At such short ranges, it is hard for the Hetzers to present only front armor to so many Shermans, too, since they have to rotate their hulls to get shots. The more numerous and faster firing Shermans get their hits faster and win. In my test, the Hetzers got 1 Sherman for the loss of their three.

In between, out as far as 500 yards the 76mm upper hull hits ricochet from the Hetzers, and they can pick off the Shermans too fast for lower hull hits to have a chance. And as far as 1000 yards, the Hetzers can still get through the Sherman's hull as well as the turret, and wind up getting enough hits, faster, to win, though they will typically lose one to a lower hull hit.

So, close enough and turrets, ROF, side angles, and numbers will defeat the Hetzer. And perhaps surprisingly, far enough away a 76mm (W) Sherman is tough enough armorwise to fight in out, and if they have some numbers to win. Each has vunerable points at that range (turret vs. lower hull), but most hits will richocet on both sides.

A plain Sherman 75 on the other hand, doesn't have the oomph to get through the front upper hull close, and has to go for the flanks. Close plus numbers still works because of the side angles it can create, but it is much tougher than with 76mm shooters. The lower hull of the Hetzer becomes vunerable to the weaker 75mm at around 750 yards, but he will get you before you get him if all his hits are kills, and you need a lower hull hit.

A W+ Sherman 75, however, has the same ability to bounce the German shots at closer ranges as the Easy Eight has at range (meaning, only turret vunerable). You have to get to about 750 yards for the weaker gun to get through the lower hull front, but if you can get that close and start with a 5 on 3 you can expect to get them before they get you, since the W+ armor will stop everything but a turret hit, even in close. Keep moving to reduce hit chances, exploit your gyros, and get close enough to punch through their lower hulls or get a side angle.

76mm TDs will also work at short ranges, around 400 yards. But they will not work in the long range window, because they do not have the armor to bounce hits long enough to find the lower hull with their own replies.

Of course, the Hetzers are drastically underpriced, costing only half what an Easy Eight or W+ Sherman 75 costs. But the improved Shermans can fight them, if you understand their capabilities and get to the right range windows (under 400 or around 1500 for the E8, and under 750 for the W+ 75mm).

Numbers help too, obviously, and the wider the frontage you can engage on, the less likelihood the Hetzers can present only front armor to all your guys. If they use "keyhole" sighting to present only front armor, use their lack of wide fields of fire to move down to 400 yards, and either improved type (76mm gun or W+ armor) will be able to tackle them.

For what it is worth.

[Treeburst155]

Thanks Jason, that's just the kind of stuff I like to know. The Hetzer is a tough one when it comes to a one on one, that's for sure. I'm in the process of running a Hetzer vs Firefly IIC at 300 meters right now. They are dead even after fifty trials. I'm going to start playing the British more often.

Treeburst155 out.

[JasonC]

Oh, it should go without saying that you don't want hull down duels when using improved Shermans vs. Hetzers, since you need a lower hull hit (masked if both hull down) and they need a turret hit (exposed).

As for the pricings, it is pretty clear to me all the Shermans except the Jumbos are overpriced by about 4 to 3, and should cost 75% of what they cost now. (That still leaves an E8 10% more expensive than a Panzer IV, which has an equivalent gun, ground pressure, etc).

While the Hetzer is underpriced by a similar amount, and ought to cost more like 110 points. The Jagdpanzer is also underpriced for similar reasons (and a bit tougher because of better armor quality), and probably ought to cost more like 150. The Tiger I and Panther are also underpriced, and ought to cost more like 220 and 235 respectively.

Overall, tank dueling ability is dramatically underpriced in CM, while frivilous extras like a 3rd MG or marginally improved armor that still won't stop anything cost lots. A Sherman 75W costs 143 points, while being worse is most respects than a Panzer IV costing 118. You go from the cost of a Pz IV to the cost of a Tiger I when you improve -either- the gun to 76mm, -or- the armor to W+ with the turret still vunerable. The Tiger has a better gun than the 76mm, and better armor than the W+.

There are various ways around this in CM today. In scenarios, just balance them using more realistic costs (Shermans = cost x0.75, strong front armor German AFV = present prices x1.25, will do it). In QBs, a 10-20% handicap will work, especially if you allow the "armor" force type for the Allies, so they can "fit" overpriced Shermans into the category budgets.

These mispricings of armor capabilities, which hit the US forces the hardest and benefit the German forces the most, are probably a major element behind the reported ladder results among experienced players, that their W-L records are best as Germans, second as Brits, lowest as Americans. Infantry variety and underpriced/overmodeled small guns are another similar factor. But can't alone account for it, when the Brits come out much better than the US (Churchills and Fireflies there).

[Treeburst155]

That is very interesting about the ladder players' records with the various forces. Considering there are hundreds of games in the "ladder pool" I would consider adjusting the point costs if I were BTS. That's some fairly hard evidence things need to be tweaked. I personally gave up on balancing scenarios based on points. I want to go strictly by the unit characteristics that affect the game the most. That's why I'm running these shootout tests. I agree a third MG or an extra 7mm of armor isn't worth adding more than a few points to the unit cost.

Coming up with accurate costs for the various units would be extremely difficult to do without LOTS of playtesting. Now, 16 months of 100's of people playtesting later, I think they should adjust the point cost.

Treeburst155 out.

[Brian]

Mmmm, perhaps I'm missing something but I cannot see the value of conducting such a test, unless of course, you're seeking to verify/ascertain the hit propabilities?

You mention in one message "play balance" - I'm sorry but I fail to see the point in "balance" - in reality, in battle one side has the advantage over the other or believes it has. "Balance" and "fairness" don't come into it.

[SurlyBen]

When I checked the results of the ladder I was on, the brits were the best, germans a very close second, and the americans trailing behind. Since then the results may have changed (that was 5-600 games ago). As far as hetzers being overpriced, maybe so if you only use tanks. Against infantry they are nearly worthless. Of course, that is well out of the scope of this thread.

[Treeburst155]

Brian,

Balance is critical for the playoffs in the tournaments I'm planning/running. I have in place an elaborate scoring system that takes into account scenario imbalance for the main tournament games, but it doesn't work for the playoffs because lots of games are required to come up with an accurate median score for any given side of a scenario. The playoff scenarios must be as even as possible. I mean, we're talking about the championship here.

It's been my experience that most games involving lots of armor are decided by a number of individual armor duels, usually head on. The purpose of my tests is to determine good matchups for these duels.

Treeburst155 out.

[offtaskagain]

Another thing meant by the balance bit is the pricing of units. JasonC has made a fairly decent case about the same effectiveness (which price IS based solely on) units being rather differently priced.

[Jack Trap]

Perhaps the seemingly unfair price differences are intended to represent the historic supply,

manufacturing and delivery conditions for the respective sides. For example a Jumbo built in the US would need to be safely brought across the Atlantic- a task that would require significant time and resources, far greater than their Axis counterparts.

The price inequities may be perfectly "fair" given the realities of WW2.

[Treeburst155]

BTS has specifically stated in the past that price is base ONLY on actual combat value. Rarity, etc. is not figured in. Only lethality on the battlefield is considered for unit cost. Rarity will be factored into CMBB IIRC.

Treeburst155 out.

[PvK]

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

The problem is that the M10 can penetrate the hull of the JPz IV with AP. In fact, in my limited testing it penetrated the upper hull and superstructure consistantly at 500m. The TacAI apparently is aware that tungsten is not useful or not needed, because it always fires AP even with 5 tungsten rounds on board.

So why does having the tungsten lower the kill chance? Still dunno...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the AI ammo selection code is different from the to-kill estimation given to the player.

If I were in an M10 faced with a Stug IV, I'd probably fire tungsten myself, because I'd figure it was most likely to be the model of Stug IV that for some reason isn't included in CM, which has thicker armor. <g>

PvK

[Redwolf]

One problem with the price adjustment for tank duelling capability like Jason outlines:

What if you are not in a tank duel game?

Is a Hetzer worth 110 points when facing infantry, guns, artillery and maybe armoured cars?

You would need different pricing schemes based on:

- kind of opponent force

- probable range of fighting in this game (map size, tree density, weather-based visibility)

As for ladder games and special values:

- Hetzer (sloped armour underprice and turret overpriced)

- Panzer IV/70

- British 95mm (HC too strong)

- Jackson

- 3" mortars (crew issue)

- StuG and StuH (turret overpriced 105mm underpriced)

However, the same issue applies. Turrets are overpriced for the tournamenthouse ladder, because these guys keep their armour back. 105mm guns are underpriced for this ladder because they have an unusual need to beak infantry.

[Treeburst155]

TEST SIX

Regular Firefly IIC vs Regular Hetzer at 304 meters. Tested 150 times.

Firefly survival rate: 37% (two immobilized)

Hetzer survival rate: 43% (three immobilized)

Mutual destruction: 20%

True, different units have different values in different situations, but I think the majority of games played do not see the Allied turret speed advantage come into play. Too much weight (the points)is given to the faster turret when you consider how often the Allied player is able to capitalize on this advantage. The reverse is true with the HE armor. Not enough weight (points)is given to these units considering how often the advantages of such units are able to be exploited in a typical game.

Treeburst155 out.

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I'm running the tests 150 times so that my results are as close as possible to the truth. There's a bigger margin of error than you may think, even with 150 runs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite so. For example the case above:

Firefly survival rate: 37% (two immobilized)

With a sample size of 150 and a sample percentage of 37% we can say the Firefly survival rate is between 28.9% and 45% at the 95% confidence level.

In other words, if this is a representative series of tests, then real survival rate is somewhere between 28.9% and 45%.

At least we're 95% sure it is. There is a 5% possibility that the real survival rate is actually less than 28.9% or greater than 45%.

For the Hetzer a sample of 150 and percentage of 43% means the real survival rate is between 34.7% and 51% at the 95% confidence level.

As you can see the difference between the Firefly on 38% and Hetzer on 43% tells us the Hetzer is probably better, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the positions could actually be the reverse.

Incidentally this illustrates why I don't take too much notice of the "I was playing a game and saw an X kill my Y at Z yards" reports.

[Wreck]

I would like to see the effects of veterans, as follows. You tested regular StuG IIIG (late) vs regular M4A3. Now how about veteran StuGs vs regular Shermans, and regular StuGs vs veteran Shermans? In other words, keep the test fixed other than varying the crew quality.

[Wreck]

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

When I checked the results of the ladder I was on, the brits were the best, germans a very close second, and the americans trailing behind.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What ladder are you talking about?

I think practically any experienced player would rate, point-for-point, Germans well above the Allies, and Brits above Americans (though less so).

Remember that there are a lot of effects to account for in looking at sets of game results. In particular, attacks in CM are easier than defenses. So I would guess your result is from a ladder where a lot of Allied attacks are played.

For a quickbattle meeting engagement, though? Give me Germans, anytime.

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, Brian! So there is a 95% chance that my figures are within +/- 8%. Hmmm...I wish I could do better than that. I don't know if I could stand to run 300 instances of these matchups. How accurate would I be going with 300?

Wreck,

I'll run some more StuG IIIG (late) vs Sherman tests changing experience levels as you suggest. Keep in mind my results are only +/- 8% 95% of the time. :eek:

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

TEST SEVEN

VETERAN M4A3 Sherman vs REGULAR StuG IIIG (late) at 302 meters. Tested 300 times with my new testing scenario!!

Sherman survival rate: 36% (including 10 immobilizations)

StuG IIIG (late) survival rate: 33% (including 11 immobilizations)

Mutual destruction: 31%

It appears this is a great matchup.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Brian Rock]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Sherman survival rate: 36% (including 10 immobilizations)

StuG IIIG (late) survival rate: 33% (including 11 immobilizations)

Mutual destruction: 31%

<hr></blockquote>

Estimated survival rates at the 95% confidence level:

Sherman: 30.8% - 41.6%

StuG IIIG: 27.9% - 38.5%

Mutual: 26.0% - 36.5%

So you're looking at roughly +/- 5% with 300 trials.

I also graphed it, just because I can:

Looks pretty good to me.