Dates and numbers on JgPz availability

[Mattias]

Looking through some old documents I stumbled over this list of initial delivery dates of German tank destroyers. Hope some of you find it interesting, but keep in mind that it is based on only one source, albeit a good one, and that I don’t recall being extremely carefully when compiling it.

So, with that said, here it is:

Initial Jagdpanzer availability based on the Motor buch Verlag ”Militärfahrzeuge” series vol. 14 and 15 (Incidentally reaching more or less the same conclusion as that of ASL).

Jagdpanther

Western front

s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 654 (the only unit ever to be equipped with three full strength companies):

Moved out with 8 Jg.Pz. 15. June 1944. In action later that month. (28. July 21 vehicles ready, 4 in repair)

Total count in the west 16. December 1944: 51 Jagdpanther

17 Jagdpanther ready and in position to take part in the Ardennes offensive

Eastern front

None available in 1944.

s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 563 (Gemischte/mixed 1x Jagdpanther comp. and 2 x Pz IV/70 (V) comp.)

In action 21.1.1945 together with the 9 Jagdpanthers of the 3. Comp s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 616 (no indication as to whether the latter unit had seen action earlier)

Peak availability was reported on the 15. Mars 1945 with 25 Jagdpanther in the west and 34 in the east being ready for action (a further 58/28 in repair)

Ferdinand/Elefant

Eastern Front

s.Pz.Jg. Reg. 656 (s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 and 654 fielding the Ferdinands)

In action at the opening of operation Zitadelle. At the evening of the opening day 37 Ferdinands where combat ready.

In August the Regiment was pulled out of the line. Abt. 654 was sent to the west to refit with Jagdpanthers while Abt. 653 remained on the eastern front until the end of November when it was ordered to move back to Germany to repair and upgrade.

After 4 months of combat on the Eastern front the Regiment claimed to have destroyed 582 tanks, 344 AT-guns and 133 pieces of artillery.

In early April 1944 s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 (now without its 1. Comp in Italy) was ordered to return to the east, operating in the area of Heeresgruppe Nordukraine, to help stem the Russian summer offensive.

In October the s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 was ordered back to refit with Jagdtigers. The remaining Elefants where herded together in s.Jg.Pz.Kp. 614, in which they fought on till the bitter end in the east. The last reports tell of the company (only four combat ready Elefants) fighting with KG Ritter south of Berlin the 22. April 1945.

Italian Front

1. comp s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653

Deployed in February 1944. Fought throughout the spring of 44’. There were rarely more than 6 vehicles combat ready at any one time. On the 26. June 1944 the support and repair vehicles of the company was ordered to be return to the Abt. Fighting in Russia. The Remaining two operational Elefants where to be left in Italy.

Jagdtiger

Western Front

s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653:

1.comp. deployed for the Ardennes offensive with 14 Jagdtigers. However these did not participate in the offensive.

3 Jagdtigers of the Abt. 653 were ready and in position to participate (as ordered) in operation Nordwind , starting on the 30. December. They were supposed to have been operating in support of the 17. SS Pz.G. Div. However, there is no record of this actually happening.

The only other unit to receive Jagdtigers was s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 512, also fighting in the west (surrendered on the 16. April).

The highest number of combat ready Jagdtigers reported was 38 (3 in repair), on the 15. March 1945. The last report was made on the 26. April when 1 combat ready Jagdtiger remained.

Jagdpanzer 38 “Hetzer”

Eastern Front

Pz.Jg.Abt. 731 (Heeresgruppe Nord) and then Pz.Jg.Abt. 743 (Heeresgruppe Mitte)

A little unclear as to when, exactly, they arrived. However, the vehicles for Pz.Jg.Abt. 743 were sent on their way on the 4. August 1944.

Those of Abt. 731 arrived a little earlier but no more than two weeks or so. This seems to be supported by the report that the Hetzers of Abt. 731 were in action from July onwards.

The allotment was 45 vehicles each.

Western Front

14 Jagdpanzer 38 were sent to the 79. and 257. infantry divisions in late August with the next batch to the west following in late September (14 each to 183, 246 and 363 Volks Gren. Div.)

On the 10th of April 1945 the number of deployed Jagdpanzer 38 was as follows:

East: 661 out of which 489 ready for action

West: 101 out of which 79 ready for action

Italy: 76 out of which 64 ready for action

Some in H.Pz.Jg.Abt but more frequently as part of the organic panzerjäger-Kompanien of the non Pz. Divisions.

20 Jagdpanzer 38 were converted to flame thrower tanks and used in the Panzer-Flamm-Kompanien 352 and 353. They were deployed in the end of December 1944, operating in the area of Heeresgruppe G.

Jagdpanzer IV

2 Main versions:

1. The first 300 of the Jagdpanzer IV had 60mm frontal armour @ 45 (hull) / 40 (superstructure) degrees (superstructure).

2. From vehicle 301 onwards the frontal armour was increased to 80mm @ 45 (hull) / 40 (superstructure) degrees

- The latter type is for some reason not included in CM, despite constituting the majority of the JgPz IV (L/48) produced. The switch to the 80mm model was made in May 1944. The production continued until November 1944.

Beginning in Mars 1944 the Jagdpanzer IV was released to the Pz.Jg.Abt. of the Pz. And Pz.G. divisions.

Western Front

The first unit to receive the Jagdpanzer IV was the Panzerjäger-Lehr-Abteilung 130 of the Panzer-Lehr-Division

When the allied forces landed there was 62 Jagdpanzer IV in the units immediately facing them.

At the time of the Ardennes offensive 92 Jagdpanzer IV were active in the west.

Italian Front

Between the 25th of April to 30th of May 83 Jagdpanzer IV were sent to Italy.

The first to see action were the ones in the III. Abt. Pz.Reg. “Herman Göring”.

Those sent to the 3. And 15. Pz.G. Div. soon left Italy with their parent units.

Eastern Front

Transports to the east began on the 6th of June. The Pz.Jg.Abt were rearmed in the same way as in the west, first in line being the 4.Pz.Div (49th Pz.Jg.Abt. IIRC).

On the 30. December 1944 the following number of Jagdpanzer IV were in service:

East Front: 209 out of which 146 ready

West front: 59 out of which 28 ready

Jagdpanzer IV/70 (V)

Production began in August 1944 with 57 vehicles being produced. The highest number produced in one month was 185, in January 1945

West Front

The first units to be equipped with this vehicle were the 105. and 106 Panzerbrigaden which receive in their new charges in August 1944, followed by the 107 and 108 in September.

In September 10 Jagdpanzer IV/70(V) were also delivered to the 116. Pz.Div

From October onwards special attenton was given to the units earmarked for the operations “Wacht am Rhein” and “Nordwind in order to bringing up the strength. These efforts brought the Jagdpanzer IV/70 (V) numbers up to 210 in the west before the offensives started.

East Front

109, 110 Pz.Brig. and the Führer-Grenadier-Brigade was fitted out in September 1944 and in October 10 vehicles was sent as replacements to the 24. Pz.Div.

Between January an Mars 1945 more than 200 vehicles were sent as replacements to the east.

Jagdpanzer IV/70 (A)

In order to maximise the output of Jagdpanzers armed with the 7.5 cm KwK 42, Alkett produced vehicle using an unmodified Pz. IV hull topped by a Jagdpanzer IV superstructure. Although this hybrid by no means could be considered a failure it nevertheless was a clearly inferior compared to the Jagdpanzer IV/70 (V). In particular the faulty layout of the armour made it much more susceptible to AP fire. For example; the 85mm gun of a T-34 could penetrate the Jagdpanzer IV/70 (A) frontally at a distance of 1500m, whereas the Jagdpanzer IV/70 (V) would be more or less safe down to a distance of 100m.

Production began in August 1944 and ended in Mars 1945 with 278 vehicles being produced.

Western Front

The first units to field the vehicle in the west was II. Abt. Pz.Reg. “Grossdeutschland” and II. Abt. Pz.Reg. 2. The Jagpanzer IV/70 (A) were delivered during November and December.

Eastern Front

In September 1944 the Führer-Begleit-Brigade was the first unit to be assigned Jagpanzer IV/70 (A), only five vehicles however. Deliveries to the east were slow at the time so it seems likely they arrived in October along with further Jagpanzer IV/70 (A) earmarked for other units. The total figure of vehicles delivered seems to be around 40 for that month.

Many vehicles were given in small numbers to different Stu.G.Brig. both in the east and the west to bolster their firepower while the bulk of units continued to consist mainly of standard StuG types.

Feel free to comment of course.

M.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Very interesting. You have revised downward my sense of how common the Jadgpanzer IV was in the last year of the war. I was under the impression that through most of the last year of the war, it was a fairly common vehicle, but your figures by type seem to make it about as rare as Tiger Is. And other sources back up your own numbers.

I recap my common sensical summary of German AFV availability, as I understand it. I am seeking correction if my overall impression is wrong. The heaviest types - Tiger II, Jadgtiger, Jadgpanther, Elephant - together number in the hundreds built and in the dozens operational, or in other words practically none.

It is noticable that their operational percentages are also very low by the standard of other types. For instance, your figures for the Hetzer have 75% of them operational, and 65% for the Jadgpanzer IV varities, but for the Jadgpanther it is under 40%. Weight wearing out tracks is one factor, but another obvious one might be inadequate spare parts for a limited run special vehicles, compared to the regular types.

Next come vehicles like the Jadgpanzer IV and the Tiger I. Thousands of these types were built, but a few hundred operational at a time is all one hears about in the actual histories and engagements. A second source counted vehicles that fought in the whole course of the Normandy battle, for instance, and found 126 Tiger I and 114 Jadgpanzer IV.

The peak production rates of a few hundred a month, and year-long production periods, should means that a couple thousand were built, perhaps slightly less. But the ~2/3rds of these operational at any one time, equip a few independent brigades or special tank battalions, and only parts of the anti-tank battalions of some mobile divisions. This, incidentally, is not their TOE role.

I mean, 114 Jadgpanzer might be the TOE compliment of 3-4 SP AT battalions (Heer were authorized 31 TDs and SS 45 TD or assault guns in the divisional AT battalions of the Pz. divisions), but 10 Panzer divisions fought in Normandy, not 3. They seem to have averaged only one company of the things apiece, some more and some less.

On looking into it view on-line OOB sites, the actual situation was more muddled, as follows -

2nd Pz had 21 Jadgpanzer IV, about 2/3rds operational, and complimented them with 25 75mm towed PAK and 8 88mm FLAK. No StuG.

21st Pz had no Jadgpanzer or StuG, but had 16 Marders (actually, they could be more ad hoc SP-AT than that) and a number of SP 105mm howitzers to use as assault guns.

116th Pz had 25 Jadgpanzer IV.

Pz. Lehr had 31 Jadgpanzer IV and 10 StuG.

1st SS Pz. had 45 StuG rather than Jadgpanzers.

2nd SS Pz. had 41 StuG rather than Jadgpanzers.

9th SS Pz. had no anti-tank battalion at all, it was still training in the rear. It received 21 StuG during the Normandy battle but was still training with them and not in the battle area.

10th SS Pz. had 32 StuG in place of missing tanks in its Panzer regiment, but again had no anti-tank battalion as the latter was still forming.

12th SS Pz. had 21 Jadgpanzer IV.

17th SS Pz Gdr. had the 902nd independent StuG attached with 31 StuG 75 plus 10-15 105mm StuH versions. It was authorized 31 organic Jadgpanzers, and these were actually sent during the battle, but detrained east of the battle area and were committed as an independent unit after the breakout (they didn't do very well as an independent unit).

There was also another independent StuG unit with 45 StuG (14 of them the StuH model if they were TOE, as they were in numbers at least), and a smattering of StuGs in the infantry divisions, and small numbers of Marders, ad hoc SP AT guns, old French tanks, etc.

Now, if one looks at TOE, one sees 10 Panzer divisions authorized 310 Jadgpanzer IVs. Instead one sees 1/3rd that number in 4 of the ten, with only Lehr using them in the TOE fashion and the other three using them for 1/2 to 2/3rds of their AT battalion. 3 others have StuGs organic or attached instead, and one has Marders (at half strength too), while two have nothing.

There is also a shortfall in Panthers, compared to TOE, but it is not as large. There are 5-6 Panthers in the Normandy battle for every Jadgpanzer, which is 2.5 times the TOE gap. Several of the formations got their Panthers late, and some did not have them and made do with older tanks or StuG substitutes, but a solid half of them get their full compliment of the beasties.

The Panzer IVs and StuGs are everywhere, filling out the TOEs and filling in other places as well. The place the StuGs are not found in their authorized strength, is in the infantry divisions. The available vehicles are filling in for missing pieces of mobile divisions. The infantry divisions are using towed PAK.

Roughly, one sees ~10% Tiger Is and Jadgpanzers in special heavy tank units or selected parts of divisional AT battalions. About 30% Panthers are the business end of the divisional Panzer regiments, but sometimes late or missing. 55% are Panzer IVs, neither late nor missing, and StuGs filling in for anything missing. Later on, or in the east, Hezters are doubtless found in much the same role as the StuG. The last 5% are Marders and ad hoc AFVs. The super-heavies are on a blackboard in Germany.

The reasons for all of the above are also pretty obvious. There are still Pz III chassis and a huge fleet of vehicles using them, so they are still used everywhere. The Pz IV chassis is also abundant, but it mostly going to make actual Pz IVs.

"How dumb!" the gamer cries, longing for a sloped Jadgpanzer IV front plate. Isn't it just as easy to make the new one? Well, probably yes, although only 65% of them seem to be operational in all the figures, while this difficulty is not seen with the Pz IV itself. But if you switch all the production lines, where do you get spare parts for a fleet of existing Pz IVs? They aren't radishes.

It seems to me there is an obvious conclusion from all of the above for CM terms. Jadgpanzers should not cost a mere 124 points as regulars, and thus be decidely cheaper than the Pz IV. I know the Pz IV has a turret, but the Jadgpanzer has a sloped front armor plate and a lower profile and is 5-10 times less common in reality, but in CM it costs decidely less. StuG IIIs should be that cheap, but not the Jadgpanzer IV, if M's story is true. And it seems to be, in this man's opinion.

[Herr Oberst]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Very interesting.

<lots more stuff>

And it seems to be, in this man's opinion.

Small reply: CM does NOT account for rarity in it's costs. Repeat, does NOT account for rarity.

They rate only combat capability into the cost. Whether there were 10 or 10,000 of a specific piece of armor, the cost is the same.

Rarity is left to the scenario creator to use when determining his force mix. In ad-hoc "player choice" battles, there is no rarity modifier for the costs.

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

To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee...

[Vanir]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

It seems to me there is an obvious conclusion from all of the above for CM terms. Jadgpanzers should not cost a mere 124 points as regulars, and thus be decidely cheaper than the Pz IV. I know the Pz IV has a turret, but the Jadgpanzer has a sloped front armor plate and a lower profile and is 5-10 times less common in reality, but in CM it costs decidely less. StuG IIIs should be that cheap, but not the Jadgpanzer IV, if M's story is true. And it seems to be, in this man's opinion.

All this would be true if rarity were factored into the cost of units in CM. But since it is not... we'll wait for it in CM2.

EDIT:

Oops, Herr beat me to it. That's what happens when you don't hit refresh after reading a long post.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-21-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Does anybody think the Jadgpanzer IV *should* cost less than a Pz IV, then?

The idea that is was a common late war vehicle, was to me the only possible justification of its low cost.

Pardon. I find I was laboring under misconceptions based on old prices. In the most recent version, I find the Pz IV and the Jadgpanzer cost essentially the same. With the Pz IV you do not get as effective armor, but you get the turret and a larger HE load for the same price. Fair enough.

But I do wonder, then, if the Allied tank prices aren't a little out of line with the better prices. Why exactly do many Sherman modules (75mm) cost ~5/4ths as much as a Pz IV?

It has one added MG, but in the case of StuGs, one added MG is a matter of 5 points. Bigger HE ammo load perhaps? Seems like a steep price for it, when you consider the added shells you get buying a larger number of cheaper tanks.

[This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 02-21-2001).]

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Does anybody think the Jadgpanzer IV *should* cost less than a Pz IV, then?

The idea that is was a common late war vehicle, was to me the only possible justification of its low cost. If as you say, rariety is not a factor, then how, pray tell, does one arrive at a 124 value for the Jadgpanzer IV, regular?

It has just as big a gun. It has better armor and a lower profile. So why is it a full squad or team cheaper? "No turret". If no turret were the only difference, I could see that. But it isn't. Not even close. One is penetrated from the front by 75mm, the other regularly bounces those, and often 76mm with a bit o' incline. Is that worth *nothing* in pure CM balance terms, if that is all that is supposedly involved?

Interesting, when I look at the JgPzIV I usually compare it to the Stug family in terms of price/performance in a QB. The MkIVs are slightly cheaper(117-119) versus the JgPzIV(120). Like most people, I wouldn't hesitate in choosing the JgPzIV in most situations, it has a better gun, better armour and a lower silhouette over the MkIV. Where the MkIV has the edge is more main gun ammo(minor), more MG ammo(major) and a turret(insignificant). In gameplay the survivabilty of an AFV far outweighs most other factors and for German AFVs the lack of a turret is not a handicap at all, though that may carry some 'weight' in CM pricing. The main drawback with the JgPzIV is the low MG ammo, making it less than desireable in the infantry support role. I imagine a comment from BTS on how they factor exactly the performance cost would be the only answer. One thing is for sure, in QBs a JgPzIV is a definite bargain.

[Mattias]

Thanks for the in depth reflection Jason. The figures certainly seem to speak another language than popular conceptions. Not that I don't find me a victim of the latter time and time again.

As for the price comparison between a Pz IV (118), a JgPz IV (120) and a Sherman M4A3 (122) I find them pretty much fair.

The comparable armour, high ammo and MG count along with its agility in combat puts the Sherman on even terms with the Pz IV.

As for the JgPz IV and indeed all turretless vehicles, I feel their use is severely limited in a fluid battle situation.

I'd go so far as to say that if people don't get the feel that a turret is a major advantage in all but pure ambush situations, then there is something wrong.

Be it simulation, scenario or player, but in the end there is a reason why turreted vehicles dominate the field.

The perspective might get muddled in the case of a direct M4A3 vs. JgPz IV comparison as the latter has a better gun and more efficient armour. But the fact is that it is only by having these advantages that the JgPz IV stands a chance at all (and indeed is priced equally).

The flexibility of the Sherman gives it a fair shot when a comparison is made that includes all the tasks and situations that the vehicle will be asked to face.

M.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Well, I don't mind the price of the vanilla Shermans very much, actually. More like StuG prices, or ~100 might be better, but I too like turrets and large HE loads. If they were the same price I'd take Shermans not StuGs.

The real puzzler is that the extra armor protection of the Jadgpanzer doesn't cost more, but the slight up-armor and just "don't fry my crew" safety of a (W) Sherman type does. And a gun that hits as hard as that in the Pz IV, costs more like 160 points not 120. Now, is it just me or is a Tiger I a rather more impressive combat vehicle than a Sherman 76? It costs 175 points.

Tiger I vs. Sherman 76 is 15 points. But Sherman 75 (W) to Jadgpanzer or plain vanilla Sherman is also 15 points, with the Sherman 75 (W) the more expensive one. How is a tiny armor difference and a bit better crew survival, as big as deal as a gun that kills everything and armor that bounces nearly everything? If the gun in the Sherman 76 is worth 40 extra points, why are the superior German guns on the Pz. IV and Jadgpanzer the same price?

I mean, the upgrade effects just make little sense to me. Say you start with plain Sherman and Panzer IV, and the higher HE ammo load and extra MG and faster turret, are thought to make up for the better gun on the Panzer IV. Fine. Now, put something like that better gun on the Sherman, and the added cost is 40 points. The same added to the Pz IV buys - nearly impenetrable armor and a gun that kills everything (Tiger I). Huh?

If the price of the Tiger I is right (say, because the turret is slow and the tank isn't fast and is more likely to bog), then it still seems to me like the price gap between the vanilla Sherman and the improved ones is excessive. 25 points for 75mm (W) type? What is that?

Right now, there is no doubt in QBs, where anti-armor ability is at a premium. A plain-jane Sherman costs more than a Jackson TD. A 76mm Sherman costs 40% more and can't kill as many enemy types, nor bounce the shots of any common enemy type. A British Firefly is a vastly more powerful tank than a U.S. Sherman 76, but it costs basically the same. If you pay more, you do not obviously get "more tank". You are just paying more.

The big guns are cheap for the U.S. in TD form, and the good armor is cheap for the Germans in TD form (all the German guns are good enough - only the Tiger has a more powerful HE round. Vs. Russians that would be different to be sure). So QBs get populated by vehicles that, I now understand, were as thin on the ground as Tiger Is (which are also underpriced in CM, it seems to me) - while upgunned U.S. TDs are more common than plain vanilla Shermans.

There is no doubt that if a plain Sherman cost less than the upgunned TDs, they'd be used more. The same would be true for Panzer IVs if they cost less than Jadgpanzers. Pure tank to tank fighting ability just seems to be a more important factor in total tactical value than the CM prices reflect.

How would I redo the costs? Start with the Germans and the base of a PAK 40 at 67 points.

Put one on a chassis, but with limited ammo. It is still worth more because it moves - 75 points for a Marder.

A StuG carries more ammo and is actually armored, though still penetrable. The existing 90 cost is about right.

Hetzers have some drawbacks, like thin side armor, no infantry carry, limited ammo load, to make up for their front armor plate. But who buys StuGs instead of Hetzers just because of those factors?

Charge 100 for the Hetzer and some people will happily pay 10 points for that front armor plate. Others won't. Disagreement about which would be the better deal is a sign of a good price relationship.

Then charge 110 points for the Panzer IV. It has lots of advantages over the cheaper types, but noticably better armor or gun are not among them.

A Jadgpanzer has the armor advantages of the Hetzer without its weaknesses. In pure tank to tank fighting, it is definitely superior to the Panzer IV, enough so that everyone acknowledges it is a "great bargain" in QBs. Consensus about a bargain is a sign of an incorrect price relationship. Charge 125 for a Jadgpanzer, so that now it is 14% more expensive than a Pz IV.

The upgunned JPz L70 might actually be overpriced, at least against Americans where its added punch doesn't mean much. 140 is enough.

The Tiger I should be more like 200 points, not 175. As some disagree about whether the Tiger or the Panther is the better tank in CM combat terms, make them the same price. Those who think the side armor and HE is more important can take the Tiger, those who think the speed and off-road ability of the Panther more than make up for it can have their preference.

Now, compare some typical Allied AFVs. A plain Sherman should not be more expensive than a Pz IV. I'd charge the same 110 price for slightly improved Shermans like the faster A3s and 115 for the W models and such. The older, slow ones should be more like 100 each, between the price of a Pz IV and a StuG (their equals in tank-to-tank combat terms, more or less).

If you put a 76mm gun in one of them, the price should only go up about 15-20 points. It does not defeat most enemy up-armored vehicles, and it hardly makes the tank invunerable itself, unlike the heaviest German types. A Sherman M4A3 76mm (W) should be around 135 points, between a Jadgpanzer and the upgunned version thereof.

Plain vanilla M-10 TDs should be around 100 points. They have slower turrets than a Pz. IV and a gun that is not any more powerful, and they are open topped to boot with smaller ammo loads.

The M-18 can pay more for its speed and such, but it is not sporting any monster gun and it is open topped and poorly armored. It should cost about 115 points.

But the Jackson is better, with its significantly better gun. It should be more like the 135 point cost of an upgunned Sherman. Fireflies should combined the two "price increases" and cost more like 150.

Stuarts shouldn't cost more than 80 points or so. M-8s in the same ballpark as now, ~75.

Incidentally, almost everyone seems to think that buying lots of halftracks is the surest way to blow your points without getting adequate combat power in return. That means their 40-45 point cost is too high. I suggest they should cost more than a typical infantry squad, so that armored infantry formations cost twice what leg ones do. This means the halftracks should run more like 30 points apiece, 35 for the kind with 2 MGs perhaps.

One man's impressions, for whatever they are worth.

[Mattias]

I see what you mean Jason and agree in principle.

What makes me wonder, in the absence of BTS pricing formula made public, is to what extent soft (subjective/game balance/popular opinion) facts have crept into the costs.

If at all that is..

M.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Ferdinand/Elefant

Eastern Front

s.Pz.Jg. Reg. 656 (s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 and 654 fielding the Ferdinands)

In action at the opening of operation Zitadelle. At the evening of the opening day 37 Ferdinands where combat ready.

In August the Regiment was pulled out of the line. Abt. 654 was sent to the west to refit with Jagdpanthers while Abt. 653 remained on the eastern front until the end of November when it was ordered to move back to Germany to repair and upgrade.

After 4 months of combat on the Eastern front the Regiment claimed to have destroyed 582 tanks, 344 AT-guns and 133 pieces of artillery.

In early April 1944 s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 (now without its 1. Comp in Italy) was ordered to return to the east, operating in the area of Heeresgruppe Nordukraine, to help stem the Russian summer offensive.

In October the s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653 was ordered back to refit with Jagdtigers. The remaining Elefants where herded together in s.Jg.Pz.Kp. 614, in which they fought on till the bitter end in the east. The last reports tell of the company (only four combat ready Elefants) fighting with KG Ritter south of Berlin the 22. April 1945.

Italian Front

1. comp s.Pz.Jg. Abt. 653

Deployed in February 1944. Fought throughout the spring of 44’. There were rarely more than 6 vehicles combat ready at any one time. On the 26. June 1944 the support and repair vehicles of the company was ordered to be return to the Abt. Fighting in Russia. The Remaining two operational Elefants where to be left in Italy.

Mattias, interesting post, thanx!

As far as the Ferdinand/Elefant goes, I earlier posted in this thread over here a similar short chronology that I compiled from Karlheinz Münch's excellent Combat History of Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 653. While not cheap, this is a great book and well worth the money, IMHO, for those who can afford it.

Some slight differences that Münch relates would probably be <ul>

[*]The 2nd Company, s.Pz.Jg.Abt. 653, stays behind with the remaining Elefants when the 1st & 3rd depart in August for refitting with the Jagdtiger. The 2nd Company is "renamed" the 614th on 15 December '44.

[*]The last two Elefants of the 614th are involved in the Berlin inner city fighting at the Karl-August-Platz and Trinity Church. Captured there by Polish and Russian troops on 1 May 1945.

[*]Rather than being left in Italy, when the 1st Company, s.Pz.Jg.Abt. 653, is withdrawn from Italy its remaining three Elefants (and one recovery Elefant) go to Vienna for repairs.

--Keith

[Mattias]

Good information Keith.

Looks like just the kind of little details that can be remembered and reported differently.

It seems a database like Salt's armour penetration lists, containing all the different "versions" of reality would be helpful.

M.

[Jarmo]

One thing that seems to be overlooked is the amount of MG's

and more importantly the amount of ammo for them.

It really does make a difference!

Added to the large amount of HE, I dont think the basic Sherman

is overpriced. PzIV on the other hand I dont like, mainly for

it's ridiculously weak turret. But I know people who believe

it's about the best value item in the game. A question of playing

style I suppose.