Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Ligur]

JasonC,

Are you, perhaps, a military historian, or just someone with a lot of time and a lot of interest? Your amount of information, on, say, the round types used in WW2 is quite frankly a bit scary.

[Wolfe]

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

BTW: the 57mm ZIS-2 was actually 57L63.5

http://history.vif2.ru/guns/atg_4.html

<hr></blockquote>

According to that website the 57mm ZiS-2 was L/73 (erm L/72.9) for both M1941 and M1943 versions. The L/63.5 version was never introduced.

BTW, does anyone know where the Guns vs Armor site went? It disappeared when Wargamer.org vanished, but I was hoping it would turn up someplace else.

- Chris

[Commissar]

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

JasonC wrote:

So I might as well repeat myself about the myth of German armor invicibility...

The reason why German heavies are so easily lost in CM is because people totally misuse them. Most of this is understandable because CM is a game with no ramifications for screwing up besides maybe losing the battle. But in real life commanders didn't put themselves in harms way like players do. And because of that, there is a far greater chance of a heavy tank KO in CM than there really was in real life.

To empahsize this reality, I found this recently.

Report from Inspector General of Panzertruppen (Sept. 44) regarding a Report from Tiger Commanders about IS-2 tanks:

"A time when there are 12.2cm tank guns and 5.7cm [my note... what the heck?] anttank guns on the Eastern Front just like the 9.2cm antitank/aircraft guns on the Western Front and in Italy, the Tiger can no longer disregard the tactical principles that apply to other types of tanks.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

Funny, someone here used the same report to basically argue the IS-2 sucked. But then again, he stopped his quoting right before Steve's quoted section. Couldn't have been a really poor tank if it forced the "invincible" Tigers to actually follow standard armor practices and end their free roam luxury.

Here is a post from the Russian Battlefield and one guys report reading experience about the IS-2. Seems to fit with what Steve is saying about the Panzertruppen report. I haven't seen the accounts the poster is referring to but it would be interesting to find if anyone knows where to get them:

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

But...thanks for trying.

I have seen a picture of a early version IS-2,

captured by the Germans in 1944, with the

armor thicknesses written on the various armored

surfaces, if that's what you meant to send.

Come to think of it, it would be interesting to

see if the Germans wrote a similar report based upon

the data obtained from testing their captured IS-2,

and if that report existed somewhere.

I saw a thread on here a few months back, claiming

that someone had read that Soviet tankers bailed out

of IS-2s in panic whenever they were hit by Tigers,

even if the first shot didn't penetrate, seeming to

imply that neither Germans nor Russians respected

this tank. Or you even read apologies for the IS-2,

claiming that it "wasn't supposed to be able to take

on Tigers" because of its lighter weight and its focus

on the breakthrough/infantry support role.

All I can say is that the two different German

recollections that I've read seem to think very

highly of the IS-2: one (a Tiger crewman, no less)

called it "the most formidable opponent that we

faced" while Hans von Luck said flat out that the

IS-2 was "superior to our tanks". These opinions

would appear to be supported by the gun

penetration/armor data for the IS-2--with all the

caveats about the possible differences in ammo and

in types/quality of armor thrown in--that the IS-2,

particularly the late-war IS-2, should have had

the upper hand versus both Tiger I and Panther.

I wonder why there is so wide a range of opinion

on this tank, and wonder if some of it is the

result of the range of quality in design/manufacture-

quality control/crew quality/ of earlier IS-2s versus

later ones. As I said earlier, it would be interesting

to compare what the Germans reported on their captured

(early war) IS-2 versus what the Americans thought

about their captured (late war) one.

Stewart

<hr></blockquote>

Anyway, take for what it's worth...

[aka_tom_w]

I have not ordered a copy yet but does anyone out there have Rexford's WW II amrour penetration book?

Does it address this issue?

It is my own sense or "gut feeling" that the US 'zook seems a little over effective against the KT.

I enjoy the thrill of KO'ing one of these monsters with a well placed 'zook shot as much as the next Allied player, but sometimes it all seems a little too easy....

-tom w

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

According to that website the 57mm ZiS-2 was L/73 (erm L/72.9) for both M1941 and M1943 versions. The L/63.5 version was never introduced.

And so it is.

I stand corrected.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

of course shermans can smoke kinkg tigers, stuarts too, because they were american so they had to have been better,hehe i agree that the king tiger is not modeled completly right, but i dont think it's as bad off as some other people do, 300m is pretty close quarters for tank warfare, stop letting the allies play on hilly ground with lots of trees on every map and you'll see an improvement

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

I have not ordered a copy yet but does anyone out there have Rexford's WW II amrour penetration book?

Does it address this issue?

It is my own sense or "gut feeling" that the US 'zook seems a little over effective against the KT.

I enjoy the thrill of KO'ing one of these monsters with a well placed 'zook shot as much as the next Allied player, but sometimes it all seems a little too easy....

-tom w

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<hr></blockquote>

bazookas were not very effecitive in real life, they had a tough enough time with panzerIV's armor nevermind a tiger, they harmlessly would bounce off of tigers, just like most of the shermans shells would literly shatter on impact and not penetrate its armor wich does not happen enough in this game

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the report was probably speaking only of Tiger 1s. However, the point is clear. And that is the offensive qualities of the Tiger, while unchanged, were now no longer as potent because the defensive ability had dropped. By instructing Tigers to use "normal" tank tactics it is, in no small way, confirming the fact that Tiger tactics were more risky than tactics used by other tanks. The driving up to the ridge without recon is a perfect example. In 1942/43 it could probably have done this and not had a serious risk of being KO'd, but those days were gone by mid 1944.

My point of quoting this was to demonstrate that misuse of a heavy tank will get it killed. Period. There have been plenty of complaints about Tiger 1Es being too easy to knock out, so this is not an issue JUST with the King Tiger. User/AI tactical errors or gamey beahvior are probably the two biggest reason for a knock out. The post that started this thread off is a PERFECT example. 600m and 300m... King Tigers (and other heavies) weren't supposed to engage this closely as SOP.

But my point remains unchallenged so far. And that is to compare apples to apples BOTH objects need to be apples. So unless you are looking at a large number of Combat Mission engagements which closely mimic real world situations, you can not with any degree of certainty compare this to real life. The higher up your conclusions the safer the observations. My observation that German armor is misused is something that can be more validated than arguing about a particular head to head example.

Jason, sorry... I've been down the round and round road with you in too many previous discussions. All I have to say is that if you think we don't know how to code up HEAT and AP equations, kindly remind yourself that you don't know that. If the results you see aren't to your liking there are two possibilities. One is that you are wrong, the other is that the equations are wrong. There is no third possibility, such as we don't know what the heck we are doing.

Charles has defended the results of the equations for 2 years now. So far they have stood up to criticism quite well. They aren't perfect, but the test data people believe in as if God Himself wrote it down on a tablet are kidding themselves. And boy... aren't we sick to death of explaining why that has a bearing on these discussions

Steve

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Yes, the report was probably speaking only of Tiger 1s. However, the point is clear. And that is the offensive qualities of the Tiger, while unchanged, were now no longer as potent because the defensive ability had dropped. By instructing Tigers to use "normal" tank tactics it is, in no small way, confirming the fact that Tiger tactics were more risky than tactics used by other tanks. The driving up to the ridge without recon is a perfect example. In 1942/43 it could probably have done this and not had a serious risk of being KO'd, but those days were gone by mid 1944.

My point of quoting this was to demonstrate that misuse of a heavy tank will get it killed. Period. There have been plenty of complaints about Tiger 1Es being too easy to knock out, so this is not an issue JUST with the King Tiger. User/AI tactical errors or gamey beahvior are probably the two biggest reason for a knock out. The post that started this thread off is a PERFECT example. 600m and 300m... King Tigers (and other heavies) weren't supposed to engage this closely as SOP.

But my point remains unchallenged so far. And that is to compare apples to apples BOTH objects need to be apples. So unless you are looking at a large number of Combat Mission engagements which closely mimic real world situations, you can not with any degree of certainty compare this to real life. The higher up your conclusions the safer the observations. My observation that German armor is misused is something that can be more validated than arguing about a particular head to head example.

Jason, sorry... I've been down the round and round road with you in too many previous discussions. All I have to say is that if you think we don't know how to code up HEAT and AP equations, kindly remind yourself that you don't know that. If the results you see aren't to your liking there are two possibilities. One is that you are wrong, the other is that the equations are wrong. There is no third possibility, such as we don't know what the heck we are doing.

Charles has defended the results of the equations for 2 years now. So far they have stood up to criticism quite well. They aren't perfect, but the test data people believe in as if God Himself wrote it down on a tablet are kidding themselves. And boy... aren't we sick to death of explaining why that has a bearing on these discussions

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>ok here is a small fact for you, on the western front, during 44-45, 90% of german tiger tanks were knocked out by aircraft, and the others that were not were usualy found abandoned by their crew due to lack of fuel and ammo, their was very little damage done to tigers by western allied tanks, even the sherman crews didnt like the tank. it was in a sense a death trap on the western front, you have the thing modeled like it is going up against italian armor or something, the playing field was far form level between the tiger and the sherman, 75 ,76 no matter. if you don't beleive me look it up, though i am not compaling to much since this is the best game of this genre and is truley a one of a kind. just because your american don't feel guilty about making the tiger the machine that it was, i'm not saying it didnt haveits downsides, but it made short work of shermans ona regular basis, keep up the good work guys

[Battlefront.com]

Iron Chef Sakai, coming off sounding like you know everything and we are just a bunch of bumbling fools that missed out on some very obvious fact does nothing to advance whatever argument you are putting forward. In fact, since we spent 3 years developing the simulation and over a 1 year defending it against the übergerman crowd, assume we know more than you. At least assume that we have had this debate at least 1000 times before and we have found little reason to change the game's modeling. If you don't believe me, ask some of the older Memembers or do a Search. It is a painfully long read, but the record is clear

The game models German heavy armor just fine. But we can not force German and Allied players to do things as was done in the real war. And THAT is where the game moves away from reality.

You also grossly underestimate the vulnerbilities of the big German vehicles as well as the ability for the Allies to knock them out. To me this demonstrates that you aren't as well educated about this subject as you appear to think. There is nothing wrong with that, except when you forget that others might in fact know more than you do.

If you think there is a specific problem with the game's modeling, then state it VERY clearly and back it up with evidence. Otherwise, your comments can not be taken seriously. "Make German tanks better" is about as usefull as asking someone to "make water wetter". The modeling is based on a detailed simulation, not some random stuff pulled out of our backsides, so if changes are needed they have to be scientifically based. So that is how criticism needs to be communicated. That's the way it has worked for 3 years and 275,000 posts so I don't see any reason to lower the standards now

Steve

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

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

ok here is a small fact for you, on the western front, during 44-45, 90% of german tiger tanks were knocked out by aircrafts<hr></blockquote>

This is wrong, it was nearer 35%.

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>ok here is a small fact for you, on the western front, during 44-45, 90% of german tiger tanks were knocked out by aircraft<hr></blockquote>

WHISTLE! Man! I'd love to see you produce a reference for this out of the hind-end statistic. Your not even close.

[JasonC]

It is always so much easier to deal with the Iron Man Sakai quality of argument. So refreshing, even, without so much as breaking a bead of sweat, that there is something almost unsporting about it. Yet what line is used in such cases?

"If you think there is a specific problem with the game's modeling, then state it VERY clearly and back it up with evidence".

Perfectly just as far as IMS's comment go. But it immediately follows a "hey I don't want to talk about that" to my quite specific statements of modeling problems. To wit -

The game models the bazooka as able to routinely penetrate the KT from the side. No penetration of a KT from the side by a bazooka exists in WW II combat records. Specific examples exist of bazookas failing to penetrate them, under battlefield conditions and also in firing range tests.

I have specifically suggested that the 90% armor quality rating for the KT is probably wrong for its side armor - however accurate it might be for the front plates.

And have also suggested the bazooka's penetration is somewhat overmodeled besides this. For which my evidence includes combat reports of their effectiveness against Tiger Is from the side, and reasoning from the rest of CM's own data about other, larger HEAT rounds and the general relationship between increased warhead size and increase penetration.

And I have specifically argued the British 95mm HEAT appears to be overmodeled. In CM it is one of the most effective tank killers in the game, able for instance to reliably kill Tiger Is from any aspect, and Panthers everywhere but the upper front hull. I know of not one combat AAR of 95mm HEAT accomplishing either feat on the battlefield. The 95mm support tanks were not thought of as super tank killers at all.

These are specific issues related to two notoriously difficult areas of armor war modeling - variations among HEAT projectile performance, and variations in armor quality. No systematic claim that nobody knows what they are doing is involved in them.

They are obviously difficult modeling questions, because HEAT round performance varies greatly with random impact angles achieved, and other specific factors. And because armor quality varies over the same plate, over the output of the same manufacturing processes, and over several technical characteristics of armor types (as hardness, etc) which can have different impacts on different types of shells.

When I point out these problems with all the specificity asked, are they diligently considered as specific cases? Or do I get a generalized "we know what we are doing"? (Stipulate it - who cares, if you have zook rounds going through KTs and none ever did in the real deal? Wrong with as scintillating a brilliance as your egos require is still wrong). What I actually get is a kind of specificity idea, but the wrong kind. Not a focus on the particular cases of zook vs. KT side, or a detailed justification of British 95mm HEAT penetration.

Instead, I get a personally specific "oh you. You are a troublesome fellow who is always pointing things out, and never seems to stop, and writes about it all too much. We cannot possibly be expected to listen to you, because you say specific things and then argue about them in detail and at great length." Isn't that what IMS is (rightly) berated for -not- doing?

What would I do about it? Unless I had a very good reason otherwise, I'd be inclined to have British 95mm and all sides 105mm get quite similar penetration numbers (still able to vary randomly, of course), close to those presently given the US 105 or the German 105 RCL; at most a few percent higher for particular types. I'd give the zook about 10% less penetration than it has. I'd raise KT armor quality to 95%.

Anything in there claiming everything is wrong? Any changes to AP shot modeling? Anything pretending heavy German tanks are invincible by all weapons? Anything deserving of a IMS level of response? Anything not specific enough to be understood? Go back and read the quote in the second paragraph of this post. See if I get anything more than ad hominums or claims of infalliability in response.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

This is wrong, it was nearer 35%.<hr></blockquote>

no that actualy isnt wrong try checking again

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Iron Chef Sakai, coming off sounding like you know everything and we are just a bunch of bumbling fools that missed out on some very obvious fact does nothing to advance whatever argument you are putting forward. In fact, since we spent 3 years developing the simulation and over a 1 year defending it against the übergerman crowd, assume we know more than you. At least assume that we have had this debate at least 1000 times before and we have found little reason to change the game's modeling. If you don't believe me, ask some of the older Memembers or do a Search. It is a painfully long read, but the record is clear

The game models German heavy armor just fine. But we can not force German and Allied players to do things as was done in the real war. And THAT is where the game moves away from reality.

You also grossly underestimate the vulnerbilities of the big German vehicles as well as the ability for the Allies to knock them out. To me this demonstrates that you aren't as well educated about this subject as you appear to think. There is nothing wrong with that, except when you forget that others might in fact know more than you do.

If you think there is a specific problem with the game's modeling, then state it VERY clearly and back it up with evidence. Otherwise, your comments can not be taken seriously. "Make German tanks better" is about as usefull as asking someone to "make water wetter". The modeling is based on a detailed simulation, not some random stuff pulled out of our backsides, so if changes are needed they have to be scientifically based. So that is how criticism needs to be communicated. That's the way it has worked for 3 years and 275,000 posts so I don't see any reason to lower the standards now

Steve

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>

i didnt mean to sound pretentious or anything, your game is the best, heck i was stuck playing panzer general before this game. it's just like i said earlier, i am not hard core against the modeling of the vehicles as much as some are, though i think there could be a few tweeks. my only point was i think more shells should bounce off the german heavy tanks is all. the shermans had a realy hard time knocking out the german heavies, they had ot get dangerously close ot do so wich ended up in the germans losing 1 tank to the western allied 5 shermans is what is basicaly came down to. the german heavies were no indestrucatable. its just they were the toughest overall tanks of the war.were they the fastest? no. did they break down, in the case of the tiger2, often. but it's just that the german tankers had a harder time scrounging for fuel and supplies and food the dispatching a sherman tank. i dont think that the german heavies were indestructable. its just that i have a realy low opinion of the shermans is all. there one saving grace was the simplicity in the design adn the speed they could be manufactured. if your looking for quality go somewhere else, quantity was its only strenght against enemy tanks at the time, wich it had by a great deal. they overwhelmingly outnumbered the german tanks thankfuly, its just that iw ould like to see a little less sherman tiger 1 on 1 matches end up in favor of the sherman more often then not. tigers were more of an asset on defense as well firing from fixed postions, they could handle a slugging match one on one with a sherman, wich rarely happend in real life but in the game it seems to occur wich i dont have a problem with. i would just like ot see the german heaveies a tad more durable, and mabe the 88 gun in general a little more accurate as it was the best overall gun of the war. dont take me the wrong way,as is combat mission is the best strategy game ever, i'm just trying ot add some constructive criticism not start a flame or anything

[Slapdragon]

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

no that actualy isnt wrong try checking again<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, according to Hap Arnold's bio he estimated less than 30%. The book "Cab Rank" peddles a figure of 50% and is the highest responsible figure I have ever seen although it is actually high. The major Tactical study on the subject "Tactical Air Command: Policy and Success 1942-1945" gives an ETO rate of 35%, plus a book on the 814th TD command commented that tactical air, while effective, made up around a third of tanks kills.

Please cite your own source for 90% of all tanks killed by aircraft in ETO 1944-45), I would be interested in reading it since even the modern Allied airforces did not get that in the Gulf War.

[Ogadai]

I'm surprised at your seemingly naive acceptance of "estimates" Slapdragon. I'm not disputing that the Chef's claim is ridiculous but that we should accept the guesses made by others as being somehow better than hard numbers.

[Soddball]

Iron Chief Sakai said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> my only point was i think more shells should bounce off the german heavy tanks is all. the shermans had a realy hard time knocking out the german heavies, they had ot get dangerously close ot do so wich ended up in the germans losing 1 tank to the western allied 5 shermans is what is basicaly came down to <hr></blockquote>

Don't we play at 'dangerously close' ranges in CM? I'm playing a PBEM game where we have 6 tanks and 4 companies of infantry slugging it out, and the tanks are within 150m of each other. From what everybody's said, I assume that probably isn't the norm.

[Sergei]

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

its just that iw ould like to see a little less sherman tiger 1 on 1 matches end up in favor of the sherman more often then not.<hr></blockquote>

Errrr-emm-umm-uhh-ohh... would you be a bit more specific? Are you claiming, that more than 50 % of your Sherman vs. Tiger battles end to the destruction of the Tiger? What Sherman are you talking about anyway? Sounds more like Jumbo-76...

[Slapdragon]

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

I'm surprised at your seemingly naive acceptance of "estimates" Slapdragon. I'm not disputing that the Chef's claim is ridiculous but that we should accept the guesses made by others as being somehow better than hard numbers.<hr></blockquote>

You need to reread the paragraph, since one of those is a hard numbers studies, and not "estimates" but a serious study based on German records, "toe kicking" by recovery teams, and other research techniques ("Tactical Air Command: Policy and Success 1942-1945"). Hap Arnold quotes USAAF sources, and the 814 bio quotes a study by AGF. So here it more depends on your bias for or against scientific studies, which admitied can be wrong, or poorly done.

I am interested though in why you dismiss these sources. For example the USAAF source could be biased because they may be looking for additional funds post Korea when it was written, but usually you need to have some reason to impeach a source with a credible methodology.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

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

Errrr-emm-umm-uhh-ohh... would you be a bit more specific? Are you claiming, that more than 50 % of your Sherman vs. Tiger battles end to the destruction of the Tiger? What Sherman are you talking about anyway? Sounds more like Jumbo-76...<hr></blockquote>

I have not played US lately a lot in the past month, but I would just loce to have my Shermans do the 1-1 thing with Tigers. Now the Firefly is different,. but I lost one to a Hetzer the other day, so even that is not fool ptoof.

I do not think here we are talking about the thr mofrlling of the game but the playing of the game, and BTS has said before that a "ubertanks always win" button just is not in the cards.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

You have to admit though that Jason has stated some pretty specific reasons why he thinks some HEAT weapons like the 60mm Bazooka & the 95mm British HEAT round are over-modelled with a logical argument based on how similar weapons are modelled & yet there has been no specific reponse from BTS. Yet BTS have stated that if you can come up with a logical reason why something should be changed & back it up with facts (e.g. no reported penetrations of the King Tiger from the front or side AT ALL either in the field or in test trials) then it could possibly be interpreted by some that they are shirking the issue.

At least that's how it seems to me at this point.

Regards

Jim R.

[Porajkl]

BTS, no offence, but if Jason's words are not specific (as you've said) then you don't even read his posts. I dare to say that Jason (and Rexford) are most specific and exact members of this forum with their statements and I think that at least of 90% of members will agree with me, right?

So it's unfair from you to accuse him of "not being specific".

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

By instructing Tigers to use "normal" tank tactics it is, in no small way, confirming the fact that Tiger tactics were more risky than tactics used by other tanks. My point of quoting this was to demonstrate that misuse of a heavy tank will get it killed.

What about proper, cautious use getting them killed just the same ? There is a mixture of variables that affect the outcome and most of them favour the Allied tanks by design (cross section targeting, fast turret, stabilizer, first shot hit accuracy etc).

Take the Villers Bogage scenario for example. Normally Wittmans Tiger gets whacked by the third turn at the latest (or gets that pesky gun hit). No matter how you try to act out the battle, in the historical way or the cautious way, it is very rarely he survives the battle.

So unless you are looking at a large number of Combat Mission engagements which closely mimic real world situations, you can not with any degree of certainty compare this to real life.

When you were designing CMBO how did you verify RL occurances to weed out anomalies ? X amount of tac level AAR's which you yourslef turned into statistics ? How did you verify the CMBO approach was historically accurate if there were no RL occurances to compare the CM results to ?

[aka_tom_w]

again...

Does anyone have Rexford's book?

Does it address this issue?

Rexford!

Hey Where's Rexford when you need him?

I'm sure Mr. Rexford would be interested in shedding some light on this issue.

(thanks Jason C for the specific references and historical references and insight)

The first time I KO'd a KT with a GREAT flank shot from 500-600 m with a 57mm AT gun my opponent Screamed BULL****!! Damn Yankee designed game no wonder they under modeled the armour on the KT.

Sure in this case the KT was advancing unsupported, sure I diverted its attention, sure it did not see the 57 mm AT gun in a foxhole in the woods, and yes I got lucky with a first shot kill, AND no this is not really germain to the issue of HEAT rounds or the penetration ability of the 'zook.

BUT the KT still "seems" under modeled.

Keep up the Good work Gentlemen

-tom w