Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, the reason why I have problems with you apparent acceptance of "estimates" or even the studies you mention is because "estimates" are basically just guesses. The studies, as even you note, are politically motivated and hence flawed. I also have doubts about US Operations Research, having read a few of their reports. The USAAF was and still is, very much motivated by an almost slavish belief in the teachings of the airpower theorists.

We both agree that the number is no where as high as the Iron Chef's claimed 90%. I think I just have sufficient doubts about US military studies to make me question their accurracy.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, the reason why I have problems with you apparent acceptance of "estimates" or even the studies you mention is because "estimates" are basically just guesses. The studies, as even you note, are politically motivated and hence flawed. I also have doubts about US Operations Research, having read a few of their reports. The USAAF was and still is, very much motivated by an almost slavish belief in the teachings of the airpower theorists.

We both agree that the number is no where as high as the Iron Chef's claimed 90%. I think I just have sufficient doubts about US military studies to make me question their accurracy.<hr></blockquote>

Basically, when I learned research methods in university, I was taught not to dismiss research based upon its counhtry of origin, the race, religion, or gender of the researcher, or the political belief's of the research system. While positional bias is important to consider, usually a report is impeached by proving its tenant or methodology wrong.

The reports created by the USAF in conjunction with the RAF are very important because they are the basis of the current system of tactical air power used in the west. While it may be nice to impeach them based upon a bias against the United States, the reports themselves are from a large number of diverse groups all finding similar things from different sources of data. I do treat all these numbers as softish, so a 35% would not surprise me to find out the actual number was 25% or 45% since that is the nature of this sort of research.

I should also note that this is not research that is based upon the whims of the researchers. For example, if I wanted to judge the sloppiness of a salute as part of a research program first I would have to define what a sloppy salute was, and that would indeed be arbitrary, so if you ever read anyone saying that czechs are sloppy saluters you could justly accuse that person or research group of nationalistic / saltue bias (in this case against the Czechs). With a tank and data taken from land surveys of destroyed tanks created by US, UK, Australian, Polish, French, and German organizations, and with a simple variable (what killed this tank), you have a fairly simple data set and a very deep background of data in which to work in (at least many groups generated fairly equivilant numbers).

A way to impeach these data sets is to find alternate data set (not a History channel show presented by the soi disant Iron Chef) and present just a tid bit about it. Assuming that it is of high quality, then you have inroads into proving that airpower sucked / was the greatest or whatever you want to prove, changing the current understanding that airpower in WW2 was useful and deadly when used correctly.

[Ogadai]

Jason, I believe I have detected a flaw in your argument. You assume that if a weapon is capable of penetrating a given tank, it will be utilised in killing those tanks. You appear to have forgotten that doctrine plays a big part in how certain weapons are employed. The CS Howitzer on British tanks was not meant to be employed in an anti-armour role. The HEAT round was provided more for the destruction of bunkers, than tanks. Therefore, to suggest that the British would have used this uberweapon to kill King Tigers, is to forget that their doctrine called for the CS vehicles to not engage enemy tanks if they encountered them, except in a last ditch situation. Instead they were to withdraw and allow the normal gun tanks to take on the enemy tanks. I'd presume that the US Army had similar ideas about the use of the 105mm armed Sherman.

Basically it appears the entire basis of your argument with regards to the CS armed tanks is based around the "gamey" idea that such vehicles will engage tanks when they encounter them.

As to the Bazooka and the King Tiger, surely the use of this weapon was such that it would have been last ditch by the infantry if they encountered a King Tiger? Wouldn't they have preferred to rely upon their towed AT guns or even Tank Destroyers?

As far as I can tell, a great deal of the argument centres more around game tactics than real tactics.

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, you appear to believe that I merely dismissing your studies on the basis of their country of origin. I am not. I am dismissing them because I know US military studies are, as you yourself admitted, all too often politicised and that US efforts at Operations Research methodology lagged a considerable distance behind those of the British. If you produced a study which was written by the government of Timbuktoo, I'd still question its accuracy if I knew those studies were flawed.

I am not anti-anybody or pro-anybody particularly, Slapdragon and the mere fact that you have yet again been the first to try and play the nationality card, I must wonder about your motivations. However, I will leave it there. You are welcome to reply, Slapdragon.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, you appear to believe that I merely dismissing your studies on the basis of their country of origin. I am not. I am dismissing them because I know US military studies are, as you yourself admitted, all too often politicised and that US efforts at Operations Research methodology lagged a considerable distance behind those of the British. If you produced a study which was written by the government of Timbuktoo, I'd still question its accuracy if I knew those studies were flawed.

<hr></blockquote>

But this is the basic problem. You "know" that a study is flawed without reading it. You base your knowledge of that flaw on the fact that it was made by the USAF (the main study I quoted was not made by the USAAF and are based mostly on post war working with numbers collected by AGF and BA) and the fact that United States research was somehow flawed compared to British research when research in both organizations was shared to a great extent and no study of these two systems has ever been done to support the claim of one research group being less than another. I am merely responding to you on the basis on which you presented your distrust of the data. Any "cards" are yours, as is the bias here.

As I stated with my saluting example, a study can be flawed because of bias and that flaw can be obvious at the face, but you are merely dismissing these studies because they are published by Americans and you "know" they are flawed.

My first question are, what flaws do they contain other than the one you mentioned (US researchers where not as good as British researchers).

[Redwolf]

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

Jason, I believe I have detected a flaw in your argument. You assume that if a weapon is capable of penetrating a given tank, it will be utilised in killing those tanks. You appear to have forgotten that doctrine plays a big part in how certain weapons are employed. The CS Howitzer on British tanks was not meant to be employed in an anti-armour role. The HEAT round was provided more for the destruction of bunkers, than tanks. Therefore, to suggest that the British would have used this uberweapon to kill King Tigers, is to forget that their doctrine called for the CS vehicles to not engage enemy tanks if they encountered them, except in a last ditch situation. Instead they were to withdraw and allow the normal gun tanks to take on the enemy tanks. I'd presume that the US Army had similar ideas about the use of the 105mm armed Sherman.

<hr></blockquote>

My, and I think Jason's, point here is that if the British had a HC round of this penetration capability and that hit with the probablity given in CMBO, then they would have changed their doctrine and made tanks with this weapon instead of the 75mm. It obviously has a superiour HE round than the 75mm. But if it also had this armour penetration capability, why bother with the 75mm?

Note that noone in this thread said it is meant to fight King Tigers. But Panthers and the Jagdpanzers including the Jagdpanthers, and Tiger 1. Note that a HC round doesn't loose its penetration capability with range. The only problem left is the lower hit probability, but that can be made up with numbers, as the British had large numbers of tanks in this timeframe. Most importantly, they would have caused the expensive German armour to act differently in firefights. A Panther or Jagdpanzer in historic defense against infantry support tanks could effort not to care *too* much about his cover (sides need to be protected, of course) and concentrate on knocking tanks out. An attacker with this HC round would have dramatically changed this balance.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Basically it appears the entire basis of your argument with regards to the CS armed tanks is based around the "gamey" idea that such vehicles will engage tanks when they encounter them.

<hr></blockquote>

The British would have been gamey if they had this Jagdpanzer-eater.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As to the Bazooka and the King Tiger, surely the use of this weapon was such that it would have been last ditch by the infantry if they encountered a King Tiger? Wouldn't they have preferred to rely upon their towed AT guns or even Tank Destroyers?

<hr></blockquote>

Please (applies to Steve as well) read the "What a German column faced in the Ardennes" thread to tell why some people bother. It is about King Tigers leading a column in a situation where infantry was too slow and other vehicles too vulnerable. Thus, it is about ambushes, and with everything they had, including Bazookas.

And it is not fantasy roleplaying, but one of the best documented armour runs in history.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

As far as I can tell, a great deal of the argument centres more around game tactics than real tactics.<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, you cannot seperate that as much as you think.

Why do cherry pickers choose the 95mm tanks in CMBO? Because they combine a much better HE shell than the already good 75mm with an AT shell that has just 2mm less penetration than the US 76mm.

How is that different from the options the British had in real life? In my opinion, the British would be even more pressed tahn Joe laddermaster to ditch the 75mm so they they would only ship ammo for two tank gun types (95mm and 17 pdr) instead of three.

Please note that the 95mm HC issue is not as important for me as the KT side armour or the Bazooka. A scenario designer can just remove the HC shells and gets perfect CS tanks.

In fact, I have to note that the whole laddergame, cherry-picker, gamey issue rather shows that CMBO is a very good game to start from. Because even the hardest laddergamers choose combined arms with infantry, guns, tanks, SP guns and artillery. They wouldn't do that if CMBO didn't get the basic balance between the arms right. They often choose the wrong type of weapon because of some detail problem *within* the arm. That hurts, CMBO got the difficult part right and some of the easy ones wrong that stop historical simulations (all IMHO, of course).

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

Redwolf, you may want to take a look at production figures for AFV armament in the British Army for your answer.

Also, ask yourself how many 95 mm weapons the US produced, and how many 75 mm weapons they had from US sources.

Then read the British Parliamentary debate - as late as the autumn of 1944 - on how adequate (!) the 75mm armed Sherman tank was.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Then read the British Parliamentary debate - as late as the autumn of 1944 - on how adequate (!) the 75mm armed Sherman tank was.<hr></blockquote>

The British, the US and the Axis all did at times decide for the inferior gun.

But why? For ease of logistics.

If the 95mm HC was that good, they could have ditched one gun type (the 75mm), I guess they would have liked the option.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Ogadai,

Slapdragon has a very good point. You can not dismiss the report simply because you are biased yourself. The report has to be proven wrong on its merits, not your opinion of it. This is the same beef that I, and others, have about Soviet reports. Here in the West we had it beat into our heads that NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, produced by the Soviet system was true. That in and itself is a political bias about alledged political bias While I admit that I still have a healthy skepticism for their reporting, like the USAF report Slapdragon mentions... the more empirical and narrow the definition of the report, the more likely that it is true. If anything, the USAF report OVER estimates the effects of their strength as it would do them no "political" good to under estimate it.

Redwolf,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My, and I think Jason's, point here is that if the British had a HC round of this penetration capability and that hit with the probability given in CMBO, then they would have changed their doctrine and made tanks with this weapon instead of the 75mm. It obviously has a superior HE round than the 75mm.<hr></blockquote>

You are playing Monday Morning Quarter Back here (US saying, not sure if everybody will get it ). Hindsight, especially with a narrow focus that purposefully disregards tangential evidence, is always 20/20. I suppose you would argue that the US 90mm AA gun was deployed as an AT asset for the same reason you argue that the 95mm was? I mean, the 90mm AA gun was similar in power to the famous German 88, and vastly superior to the short 75mm. So according to your method of thinking here, it is obvious that the US must have used it in this way simply because it was better. However, you would be equally wrong to suggest this since the gun was in fact only used in the ground role a few times in desperate circumstances.

Again, unless you can show some sort of evidence that the 95mm howitzer was in fact used as an AT asset, your case is weak at best. It is totally based on supposition. Supposition that, when applied to at least one other similar "über weapon" fails.

So if this is the basis for saying that the 95mm round is over modeled... you have failed to impress us that change is even something that should be looked into.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Note that noone in this thread said it is meant to fight King Tigers. But Panthers and the Jagdpanzers including the Jagdpanthers, and Tiger 1. Note that a HC round doesn't loose its penetration capability with range. The only problem left is the lower hit probability, but that can be made up with numbers, as the British had large numbers of tanks in this timeframe. Most importantly, they would have caused the expensive German armour to act differently in firefights. A Panther or Jagdpanzer in historic defense against infantry support tanks could effort not to care *too* much about his cover (sides need to be protected, of course) and concentrate on knocking tanks out. An attacker with this HC round would have dramatically changed this balance.<hr></blockquote>

You have come to this conclusion in 2001, without looking at any of the side effects and reality of the time. You have a nice theory here, but there is absolutely no basis for it. Kinda like people who like to come up with alternate ways the Germans could have done production to come out a head ("if they only concentrated on a few models of tanks, and focused less on heavier ones, they could have..."). It is all interesting theory work, but it means nothing to us.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The British would have been gamey if they had this Jagdpanzer-eater.<hr></blockquote>

You have no evidence to show that they did not have this weapon, so this claim is baseless.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Please (applies to Steve as well) read the "What a German column faced in the Ardennes" thread to tell why some people bother. It is about King Tigers leading a column in a situation where infantry was too slow and other vehicles too vulnerable. Thus, it is about ambushes, and with everything they had, including Bazookas.

And it is not fantasy roleplaying, but one of the best documented armour runs in history.<hr></blockquote>

So there is documented evidence of Bazooka rounds failing to penetrate the side armor of KTs in real life which CM would allow penetrations? I'd like to see that. Got a link to the thread?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Why do cherry pickers choose the 95mm tanks in CMBO? Because they combine a much better HE shell than the already good 75mm with an AT shell that has just 2mm less penetration than the US 76mm.<hr></blockquote>

Why do German Cherry Pickers choose King Tigers, when apparently less than a dozen or so actually fought against the British? Why do US Cherry Pickers opt for the Jumbos? Surly you aren't suggesting that these vehicles are over modeled?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How is that different from the options the British had in real life? In my opinion, the British would be even more pressed than Joe laddermaster to ditch the 75mm so they they would only ship ammo for two tank gun types (95mm and 17 pdr) instead of three.<hr></blockquote>

The most likely answer is ... because of some combo of reasons that you aren't aware of. Some have been suggested to you, but you have clung to your theory in spite of it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Please note that the 95mm HC issue is not as important for me as the KT side armour or the Bazooka. A scenario designer can just remove the HC shells and gets perfect CS tanks.<hr></blockquote>

That is gamey. The correct way would be to not have CS tanks used at all when enemy armor was involved, since apparently they did not engage them in real life. Remember, even if we reduced the effectiveness of the 95mm round it would still clobber most of the common German tanks of the day. So that further shows that your theory isn't based on anything.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In fact, I have to note that the whole laddergame, cherry-picker, gamey issue rather shows that CMBO is a very good game to start from. Because even the hardest laddergamers choose combined arms with infantry, guns, tanks, SP guns and artillery. They wouldn't do that if CMBO didn't get the basic balance between the arms right. They often choose the wrong type of weapon because of some detail problem *within* the arm. That hurts, CMBO got the difficult part right and some of the easy ones wrong that stop historical simulations (all IMHO, of course).<hr></blockquote>

Like Jason, you have missed the major reason why Cherry Picking can work. RARITY. In reality the Germans would have just shy of a Cold Day In Hell's chance of getting a King Tiger. This is fixed with CMBB. But this isn't just about the KT, as you pointed out.

The other thing that CM does not enforce, because it is a game as well as a simulation, is forcing the player to conform to historically correct actions. From what I can tell CS tanks weren't supposed to engage enemy armor. So if they saw them, they would most likely withdraw to safer positions and call up the dedicated AT assets. As we all know, the Allies had quite a few of these around. But CM doesn't do this to the player, so expect gamey matchups to continue long into the future, except when the scenario designer excludes gamey stuff from even being a part of the scenario.

One other thing that is not in CM is vehicle morale. Allied tankers were not very thrilled about going up against German tanks. Why? Because odds were decent that they wouldn't survive the encounter. Sure, it varied greatly from situation to situation, but I am talking about generalities here. CMBB now has Vehicle Morale as an optional feature, and it does make a huge difference. Those CS tanks wouldn't be so thrilled about going up against a KT because the chances of getting a hit before dying is probably slim. That is, of course, assuming that the Germans actually get a King Tiger (Rarity) and that they are not using correct tank tactics (keeping your distance, firing from superior positions, etc.).

Lastly, let us not forget that you are in command of little pieces of digital data. They are not real human beings. They also, even with CMBB's changes, are way too willing to execute your bidding. In real life they were FAR more cautious, and definitely far more concerned about living to fight another day than to take a little flag on the hill before a 35 minute timer has gone DING! In a CM game you can order 5 CS tanks to attack a King Tiger, or Panther or whatever, knowing that you have a decent chance of knocking it out. But the tank commanders, in real life, would also know that they had a decent chance of all being snuffed out first. So they wouldn't even attempt it. Especially when they knew that someone else was supposed to do the dying in such a case, not them. Remember, humans LOVE to shirk responsibility whenever possible. The Army is no different.

All in all... Combat Mission itself is a highly realistic simulation. But what happens to it in the hands of the player is almost certainly not in and of itself realistic. So once again... trying to compare Combat Mission to Real Life, as if there is no significant differences between the two, is completely and utterly misguided. One has to account for the differences between the two. I have tried to do that over and over again in this thread, but I don't think everybody is fully comprehending my point. Only so many different ways I can say it

Steve

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Bluefish]

Next month?

[Slapdragon]

Here is one research falacy that has always bugged me. Someone has never read an account of some object destoying another, or had rarely seen it happen in the literature. Thus the thing was not possible.

But this of course is a meaningless measure. For example, the United States in World War Two produced a weapon that was probably the most powerful antitank weapon to that date (1945), a 120mm cannon that fired an APDS shell. There is, however, no record of it ever destroying a Lynx light tank. Thus, by the logic being used, it could not do so (despite being able to penetrate almost 300mm of armor plate).

Well, the plain fact is that this weapon never left the proving ground until post war, when it equipped the M106 (a development of the T-32). This heavy tank was designed to face the JS-3 and beat it in combat, and by all accounts it could have (it never faced a JS-3).

In fact, if it had ever faced a Lynx, it could have blown daylight through that tank length wise and perhaps done in the Lynx sitting behind it.

Yesterday I had a Firefly kill a Puma, despite there being no record of such a thing happen. This means we must change the game to remove the ability of Fireflies to kill Pumas.

As for comparison of penetration tables, the problem is with highly variable data sets. Some tests of ammo were done with hand turned shells (since the weapon was captured) on static plate. Some tests were done by a pair of GI's setting up a gun on a lark and letting fly. Both data sets develop a set of numbers that are very hard to compare.

Not impossible to compare. As Rexford's book points out you can find data sets on ammunition and figure ways to get agreement from tests. You can do what Charles did in many cases and that is uses a physics model based on these tests and median data points.

[Redwolf]

[Edited, the stupid 95mm isn't ruining nearly as many game minutes as we keep posting about it, and data about that weapon is hard to find. I have enough.

I will keep an eye on Bazooka/Tiger fails when reading Ardennes reports, that has a chance of being useful.]

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Shandorf]

Ya know, I get Steve's point of view and I totally agree with him. I just wish it wasn't true. I always try to pick a historically accruate outfit when I playing a battle and It seeems that ALWAYS when I play someone who has picked the British they pick those damn Churh VII's. Very annoying but something i have to live with.

Oh well...

Jeff

[Richard Morgan]

I have just ploughed through this whole thread... and I think that a key point that comes out is the fact that in many cases, BTS are having to model things that just DIDN'T happen in real-life. They are however, correct to do so, as these situations COULD conceivably have happened and WILL certainly come up in the gaming environment.

I played a game recently, where a troop of Cromwell 1V's took out a King Tiger from the flank at aprox. 60 yards range. I checked my armour thickness/penetration data very carefully, and given the armour slope of the KT, a kill seemed somewhat uncertain, even at THAT range. This seemed to be confirmed by the fact that the first hits (as I recall) just bounced off!!! - and yes, the AI was using the beast too far forward, and without support.

Perhaps Iron Chef Sakai (or anyone else) could tell me if there is a documented case of a Cromwell knocking out a King Tiger at ANY range?!!! In fact, let's broaden this out. I apologise for asking this, as I'm sure that it has been covered before, but could someone remind me how many KT's were knocked out by direct fire?

Sorry if this doesn't add much to the debate, but an answer would be of interest to me.

Regards,

Richard.

[eeyore]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Originally posted by Big Time Software:

One other thing that is not in CM is vehicle morale. Allied tankers were not very thrilled about going up against German tanks. Why? Because odds were decent that they wouldn't survive the encounter. Sure, it varied greatly from situation to situation, but I am talking about generalities here. CMBB now has Vehicle Morale as an optional feature, and it does make a huge difference. Those CS tanks wouldn't be so thrilled about going up against a KT because the chances of getting a hit before dying is probably slim. That is, of course, assuming that the Germans actually get a King Tiger (Rarity) and that they are not using correct tank tactics (keeping your distance, firing from superior positions, etc.).

[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Oh, boy, can't wait for this! Wanted to ask but daren't. I guess, in relative terms, modelling the game physics (granted the data and information) is one thing, but modelling whether a Cromwell with 95mm gun (sic) retreats on the sight of, for instance, a King Tiger is going to cause a bit of rumpus hee, hee can't wait to see some threads: "oh, how'd those green Sherman take our my veteran Panther? Aren't they supposed to rout?" or "no! an Elite Tiger doesn't turn tail when faced with ....etc, etc"

Nevertheless, looking forward to this development... perhaps the German ubertank was more to do with psychology than armour penetration tables so if this development comes off, they might be worth the points

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: eeyore ]

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: eeyore ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Edited, the stupid 95mm isn't ruining nearly as many game minutes as we keep posting about it, and data about that weapon is hard to find. I have enough.<hr></blockquote>

I think I said the same thing 2 pages ago Seriously, if you (or anybody) can show evidence to prove our figures wrong, we welcome it. Conspiracy theories, no matter how logical they might look, aren't good enough. Unscientific reductions/increases based on flawed logic is also out of the question. So here are two things that would definitely be interesting to examine:

1. Any documented matchup between a 95mm close support tank and German armor. Any armor, but in particular "heavies" like the Panther and Tiger family.

2. Any documentation of British doctrine, or field modifications to, which advocated use of CS vehicles in the AT role.

3. Any credible real life reports of Bazooka rounds failing to penetrate the side armor of the King Tiger, particularly its turret.

Keep in mind that even if something like the above does turn up, it needs to be picked apart to look at its context. Having a report that says "Joe fired his bazooka at the side of a King Tiger and it failed to penetrate" isn't enough all on its own to impress us. Certainly good enough to increase suspicion that something is wrong, but too vague to be of much use in and of itself.

Richard:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I have just ploughed through this whole thread... and I think that a key point that comes out is the fact that in many cases, BTS are having to model things that just DIDN'T happen in real-life. They are however, correct to do so, as these situations COULD conceivably have happened and WILL certainly come up in the gaming environment.<hr></blockquote>

Exactly. Can you imagine how complicated it would be to code up a simulation which was both flexible and also only portrayed historically documented matchups? And what would be the point of doing that? Not a game I would like to play I personally enjoy having odd mixups of units fighting one another. It is an interesting and fun experience. However, if I were playing multiplayer as much as you guys I would also be purposefully shying away from "Cherry Pickers" because it might be fun to do the KT vs. Churchill thing once or twice, but with a couple million different possible game combinations, why would I want to play a couple of them over and over again?

eeyore:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Nevertheless, looking forward to this development... perhaps the German ubertank was more to do with psychology than armour penetration tables so if this development comes off, they might be worth the points<hr></blockquote>

There is plenty of documentation to suggest that this was often the case. More importantly, tankers were not supposed to be Kamikazes. If they came upon a situation which they were not supposed to engage in (ex. CS tanks vs. heavy armor, light armor vs. heavy armor, etc) or which they thought there was a poor chance of surviving, most of the time they withdrew to figure out a smarter way to achieve whatever objective they were assigned to do. Because CM is a game, much of this behavior is totally missing. But with the OPTIONAL vehicle morale feature, expect vehicles to be far more proactive in their desire to withdraw from combat, at least tactically.

Steve

[L.Tankersley]

I haven't read this entire thread, it's too tiresome, but one item strikes me. Some folks seem to be arguing that if the Churchill's 95mm howitzer 'c' round was as effective in reality as it is in CM, then the British would have used these tanks in an AT role, and possibly even produced them in lieu of their 17-pdr armed tanks.

This seems ridiculous to me, for the reason that the 95mm howizter had nothing like the effecive range of the high-velocity guns the British actually used in an AT role. People go on and on about how the German high velocity guns coupled with their superior optics could achieve kills at ranges of many thousands of meters. There's no way that 95mm gun is going to be able to compete at engagement ranges prevalent in real life. It might be able to hit the broad side of a barn (that pretty much being what it was designed for) but hitting a tank on the move at long range is something else again. Yet another byproduct of the distortions that are imposed by CM - the results may be realistic in a "what-if" sense, but CM doesn't always present the most accurate (in a historical sense) situations.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

I am pretty sure that Iron Chef Saki is someone well-known who just enjoys this way to point out he thinks we are beating a dead horse.

I take bets on who this really is. Gunny Bunny? Nah, that would be too much to ask him (her?) for.

[Madmatt, please don't spoil us with IP or browser face info.]<hr></blockquote>

i don't think you guys are beating a dead horse, i just think that this game rocks, could it use some tweeks, sure, but anyway you tweek the game your going ot have people who disagree,no matter what it is, you just can't please everyone, thouhg i assume everyone on here enjoys the game. i am not so new to the game anymore i have played a good amount of ip games and from what i have seen so far, wich all have been fun, but never the less alot of people don't deploy their units as well as they could. if your heavy tank is firing at a light tank, why get close to it? a tiger is more deadly at longer ranges where it out ranges its opponents and where a allied tank won't penetrate a tiger at long range, at point blank range, basicly anyhting 300m in, it's anyones ball game. this was common practice for the russians who had not advantage at long range, so they simply drove their tanks in point blank, usualy rammed the tiger then fired, of course you need lots of tanks for this to work, wich the russians had, they took horrible loss but could aford a battle of atrition with germany, it was the only way they cold win the war was to take advantage of their sheer man power.and if they could sucker germany inot battles like that, i.e stalingrad, so they lode a million men, they have a million more, germany's reserves were not as large, and i assure you i am not fuzzybunny or whoever it is i remind you of, i just got this game a few months ago, and it rocks. i've taken out allied tanks minus any armor, i know how to deploy my units, dont even need a panzer schrek team as the germans. nothing will work 100% of the time as well, this is not a simulation of super mario brothers where your playing a linear game where you have ot use one tactic to advance to the next level, the virtual battle field of this game, like the real one i assunme, mutates and evolves and flows all at different points and you cant always predict where and when and how. and there is a luck factor as well, sorry but sometimes a sherman is going to get a perfect shot on a tiger, it can happen , but the great thing is, it goes both ways and you just never know. no plan survies contact,that was a rommel quote, you you cant adapt to the flow of the game your going to run into some problems no matter what units your using. and i might add if you can adapt, you are going to run into some problems on the battle field, nothing is automatic in this game and thats why it rocks. if you expect your tiger to always win no matter what and expect to be impervious to anyhting at close range or even long, well you are not going to be happy with the game. i like this game because it actualy takes skill, there is no formula to win, like oh just take 3 tigers, a strumgrupen squad and a sniper and you'll have no problem mowing over your opponent, no matter what he deploys or what tactics he provides his units. my suggestion, go back to playing age of empires or something, where every game is the same and there is only one formula to victory and you'l be the star of the game as long as your the only one who knows it, or you could just keep crying about this game without bothering to read anything or dare i say make changes to your flawed tactics, or just have fun playing the game and stop being a sore loser. and before you think i'm some kind of a pro at this game, yeah i like to think i'm good at it, but i've lost before, i've even lost bad, and you know what? it was fun. i had fun losing at this game and i still do when it happens. if someone takes out one of my big expensive toys with a well aimed shot, i'm impressed. i'll type in the chat , nice shot, give the tank crew some credit, then think of how their going to pay, hehe. everyone is entitled to their opinion and i'm just stating mine, i'm not trying to get anyone mad, but my opinion is that as is, this is the best game ever. period

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Jason, I believe I have detected a flaw in your argument. You assume that if a weapon is capable of penetrating a given tank, it will be utilised in killing those tanks. You appear to have forgotten that doctrine plays a big part in how certain weapons are employed. The CS Howitzer on British tanks was not meant to be employed in an anti-armour role. The HEAT round was provided more for the destruction of bunkers, than tanks. Therefore, to suggest that the British would have used this uberweapon to kill King Tigers, is to forget that their doctrine called for the CS vehicles to not engage enemy tanks if they encountered them, except in a last ditch situation. Instead they were to withdraw and allow the normal gun tanks to take on the enemy tanks. I'd presume that the US Army had similar ideas about the use of the 105mm armed Sherman.

Basically it appears the entire basis of your argument with regards to the CS armed tanks is based around the "gamey" idea that such vehicles will engage tanks when they encounter them.

As to the Bazooka and the King Tiger, surely the use of this weapon was such that it would have been last ditch by the infantry if they encountered a King Tiger? Wouldn't they have preferred to rely upon their towed AT guns or even Tank Destroyers?

As far as I can tell, a great deal of the argument centres more around game tactics than real tactics.<hr></blockquote>

finaly some sanity, i totaly agree, sometimes you can use a unit in an unconventianal way and have it pay off depending the situation, but you have to first know what your units do and are capable of and what their basic purpose on the battle field is before you can start adlibbing on possible other uses

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Slapdragon, you appear to believe that I merely dismissing your studies on the basis of their country of origin. I am not. I am dismissing them because I know US military studies are, as you yourself admitted, all too often politicised and that US efforts at Operations Research methodology lagged a considerable distance behind those of the British. If you produced a study which was written by the government of Timbuktoo, I'd still question its accuracy if I knew those studies were flawed.

I am not anti-anybody or pro-anybody particularly, Slapdragon and the mere fact that you have yet again been the first to try and play the nationality card, I must wonder about your motivations. However, I will leave it there. You are welcome to reply, Slapdragon.<hr></blockquote>

i could not agree more, if you want something comical to read, read the armies handbook issued to the soldiers heading to fight the germans, it tells them that the sherman is the best tank in the world and the american machine guns were much better then the feared german mg42. the poor soldiers first going into combat were under the impression that they had the best tanks and equipment in the world, they learend very fast that it was not true, talk to any veteren and they'll tell you. one that saw combat that is. there are many accounts evne on the history channle of veterens talking of this as well as historians, if you dont feel like spending alot of time fishing around to find some books that tell of this

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

I was playing a neat operation scenario this weekend about Stoumont. I was as the US and the Germans (computer) got two King Tigers. Well I dispatched them both!!! The first one got nailed by a 76mm AT Gun, a front turret penetration at about 600 meters!?! The other got nailed by a M-4 (75), a side turret penetration at about 300 meters!?! It seemed too easy to kill those beasts!

Anybody else experienced this?<hr></blockquote>300 meters is point blank in tank warfare, you dont want anyhting that close to your tiger, or anyhtnig other tank for that matter, especialy firing into your flank. at that range it is anyones game. germans were told to avoid fighting at those ranges at all costs, the tigers strenght was its heavy armor and 88 gun could kill enemy tanks at distnaces that the tiger was pretty much impossible to kill. at point blank range, 300 meters, the tiger is just as vulnerable as anyhting else, and from a side shot, ouch that was your error in deployment and allowing the td to close in that close and get a shot off

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Slapdragon, the reason why I have problems with you apparent acceptance of "estimates" or even the studies you mention is because "estimates" are basically just guesses. The studies, as even you note, are politically motivated and hence flawed. I also have doubts about US Operations Research, having read a few of their reports. The USAAF was and still is, very much motivated by an almost slavish belief in the teachings of the airpower theorists.

We both agree that the number is no where as high as the Iron Chef's claimed 90%. I think I just have sufficient doubts about US military studies to make me question their accurracy.<hr></blockquote>

ogadai i am not above saying 90% is not debatable, i totaly agree with you about stats, once source said 90% i'm sure i can find one that says 10%, but i do t not view 90% as carved in stone, welcom to the forum Ogadai, you've finaly injected some sanity into the mostly biased conversations here

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i could not agree more, if you want something comical to read, read the armies handbook issued to the soldiers heading to fight the germans, it tells them that the sherman is the best tank in the world and the american machine guns were much better then the feared german mg42. the poor soldiers first going into combat were under the impression that they had the best tanks and equipment in the world, they learend very fast that it was not true, talk to any veteren and they'll tell you. one that saw combat that is. there are many accounts evne on the history channle of veterens talking of this as well as historians, if you dont feel like spending alot of time fishing around to find some books that tell of this<hr></blockquote>

"Iron Chef", there is a big difference between a manual produced in 1944 and a 1956 study of air power that defined the use of TAC aire for the Western powers for the next 45 years. One is a manual written very fast for the consumption of soldiers who in 1944 averaged a 4th grade education, and the manual had no research checks and balances in it. The 1956 study took 4 years to complete (in part because of the Korean war data). The other studies are similar although less earth shaking, while the quotes from TAC Air guys come from statistics on hand when the books in question where written.

A major problem of course with judging research is the bias of we who read it of course, which is why, as Steve pointed out with the Russian example, it is very important to approach information from a neutral perspective. In the case of the manuals they were not really flawed. The 1944 Army Ground Forces assesment of the German Army was based oin research done up to 1943 and was not that far off the mark for that time: US and Commonwealth tanks near the end of the Desert campaign and in Italy were almost invicible except for a few exceptions that had been tactically dealt with. But by the end of 1943 new equipment was coming on line for the Germans, while the Allies where having problems getting their next generation gear on line (or in some cases even recognizing the need for a "next generation" of gear) resulting in the general inferiority on the ground of Allied equipment in early 1944 (although this would end by late 1944 with an increased number of Fireflies, the Comet starting to come on line, the M-36, the gradual replacement of the A3/75 with the E8 76mm Shermans in the US Army, and increasing problems with fuel and production problems with the Germans.)

[JasonC]

People want additional evidence. That is reasonable enough.

Report WO 185/178, 1943. Records the penetration of 95mm HEAT as 90mm@30 degrees, not 110mm, and notes only a small behind armor effect. Is it not possible the 110mm figures seen in some other reports are for 0 degrees slope? The two numbers would certainly be consistent with each other, and it seems to me quite common to quote HEAT penetration numbers vs. flat armor, even when AP numbers are being quoted vs. 30 degree slope. Also, the same figure would be consistent with tested German 105mm HEAT performance, and the overestimates of US 105mm HEAT in tests (that is, no claim of outperformance of US 105mm HEAT).

Second, what is it with the 95mm vs. King Tiger strawman? How many times do I and others have to say we are talking about 95mm HEAT vs. any serious German armor - Panther turret fronts, Tiger I fronts - not King Tigers. The 95mm was present at 2 per company in all units using British-made tanks, as opposed to LL. That includes most recce battalions in the armor formations (only one Canadian unit used Shermans for that) and the tank brigades, as well as the whole line strength of the 7th AD. Panthers were quite common, and Tigers hardly unheard of, and certainly engaged these formations. Ranges in Normandy tank fighting were often low, low enough for accurate shooting by the low velocity 95mm (which is 500m/s, not exactly a German IG MV). The issue of the overmodeling of the 95mm is seperate from and additional to that of the undermodeling of KT sides. Nobody is talking about 95mm HEAT vs. KT sides, except people beating straw instead of facing the argument. No one has produced a case of 95mm HEAT defeating either Tiger I fronts or Panther front turrets. I submit that is because none exist.

Someone wanted info about bazooka failures. Start with this one -

Time - December 17th, 1944, after 10:00 PM - about 40 hours into the Bulge fighting.

Place - east of Elsenborn, on a road to the villages at the base of the ridge.

Combat account - "Then five or six German tanks attacked in line, rolling to within a couple of hundred yards of the foxhole line where they halted and fired for nearly half an hour. Next the accompanying infantry rushed in, but were cut down by the heavy machine guns on the final protective line. Finally the enemy tankers and riflemen got together in an assault that broke through. The 1st Battalion refused to panic and set to work with bazookas against the flanks of the blinded tanks. One of the panzers was crippled, but the crew compartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds (perhaps this was a Tiger). So Cpl. Charles Roberts (Company D) and Sgt. Otis Bone (Company drained some gasoline from an abandoned vehicle, doused the tank, and lit the whole with thermite grenades."

What other German vehicle is supposedly impervious to bazooka rounds? (If it is supposed to be a Tiger I, then the case for King Tigers is even stronger). This was a night action, in woods, and the German infantry had been stripped off. The tanks were buttoned. They were hitting them from the flanks, as was obviously necessary. The tank was already immobilized (perhaps by mines, perhaps by a bazooka hit to the tracks) - it was a question of administering the coup de grace. The U.S. unit involved had an extra supply of bazookas - a battalion's worth plus 15 taken off a recent arrival of ammo vehicles - there was no shortage of launchers or rounds. It was not any lack of bravery to get close - they physically poured gasoline over the tank when the bazookas weren't enough. The location was in the SS sector, where two companies of King Tigers from the 501 SS sPzAbt were operating, besides the company sent with Peiper.

Somebody tell Sgt. Bone and Cpl. Roberts that any German tank can be routinely killed by a bazooka hit from the flank. In CM today, every German vehicle can be.

Next, there is the well known failure of 60mm bazooka rounds against T-34s in Korea. Including side hits and rear hits; including in some cases a dozen of them on a single tank, which was still alive and kicking until 105mm HEAT hit it. The armor protection of a T-34 is inferior to that of a King Tiger. That is why the army switched to 3.5 inch bazookas, aka panzerschreck copies. The present rating of the bazooka is 45@60 degrees, which is enough to KO T-34s, even if T-34s are given 100% armor quality, which would be generous.

Right now, the situation on bazooka vs. various plates is that it can reliably kill Tiger Is from the side, even with significant side angle, when the combat evidence is that such kills were possible but hard, and needed flat hits. That it can kill T-34s, when it could not do more than immobilize them. That it can kill King Tigers routinely, when there is evidence repeated hits from the side failed to penetrate the crew compartment, and no evidence of a KT killed by a bazooka.

In the detailed KT loss reports on another current thread, there is one, count 'em, one KT loss ascribed to a 76mm PIAT, and one additional caused by some sort of HEAT of unknown origin, in late war central Germany (my money is on a captured faust - those had 4 inch warheads and second-generation HEAT designs). Out of 198 apparently used in the west.

Then there is the issue of upcoming questions in CMBB. Steve wants German 105s to be scarce, so rariety will take care of everything. Problem - they are the standard German field piece, with 3000 issued before Barbarossa, rising to 5000 so far by the time of Kursk. They were definitely used direct fire against Russian tanks. The 105s proved successful against the T-34 this way, but not against the KV. Kursk is the first time the armored and self-propelled versions were used, both StuH and Wespe, that much is true. But open your copy of CM and put in a StuH and a Pz IV. Look at their penetration numbers. The 105mm HEAT outperforms the 75L48 everywhere but point blank and flat slope. Only 1/6th of German AFVs at Kursk had guns better than 75L48. And KVs were certainly still around at the time of Kursk.

And KVs have 110mm of armor, front and sides (120mm on the turret front). If the armor quality is rated low, then perhaps the 75L48 will penetrate them out to medium ranges, or with side angle, but otherwise they need reasonable close or flat shots. But if the armor quality is rated low, you also won't need Hl/C 105mm HEAT to penetrate them; the earlier types will do. Which is it, then? Do 75L48s supposedly kill KVs easily out to 1 km ranges (low armor quality KVs) as you imply with your "better guns out for a year" comment, or can earlier forms of 105mm HEAT not penetrate them (high armor quality KVs)? You can help with the facts aspect of this by telling us what uniform armor quality number KV-1s are going to have in CMBB.

[Roksovkiy]

Rexfords new book has given the King Tiger's side plates better quality than US standard 240BHN. Up to 10% better.

The new beta OOB's in SPWAWv7 is based on rexfords new book. All armor values are treated as their equivalent to US 240BHN. The King tiger side hull is rated as 88mm RHA armor.