Am I just unlucky or is this normal?

[meldorian]

Hi!

I recently played a QB against the AI. As usually, I kept my tanks (3 T34/85, late model) behind my Infantry in order to spot enemy tanks before they spot my tanks. Unfortunately, this time, it didn't work, and one single, regular Hetzer sighted my 3 T34/85s at about 700m and opened fire. Everyone was in a hull-down position, so there weren't a lot of hits, and I fully expected my one regular and two unexperienced tanks to out-shot his one Hetzer. But no, the Hetzer destroyed one of my tanks and then retreated, even though he was hit several times to no effect. Later on, I got him in the flank, but there was another regular Hetzer which won a fight against the remaining two T34s.

Are T34s really *that* bad? I mean, the Hetzer just got 60mm of armor, so why the hell is this stupid thing invulnerable to my 85mm rounds? If I can't penetrate the frontal armor of a King Tiger ok, after all, I can buy an entire platoon of T34/85s for what one of those monsters costs. But Hetzers?

[Unusually Wooden]

I've long felt the frontal armour of the Hetzer is a little too unrealistically impenetrable,no doubt the steep slope plays too big a part.

However,the Hetzer has two Achilles Heels which can be exploited- Its side/rear armour isn't so hot,and it lacks a turret...

[SirReal]

Originally posted by meldorian:

Hi!

I recently played a QB against the AI. As usually, I kept my tanks (3 T34/85, late model) behind my Infantry in order to spot enemy tanks before they spot my tanks. Unfortunately, this time, it didn't work, and one single, regular Hetzer sighted my 3 T34/85s at about 700m and opened fire. Everyone was in a hull-down position, so there weren't a lot of hits, and I fully expected my one regular and two unexperienced tanks to out-shot his one Hetzer. But no, the Hetzer destroyed one of my tanks and then retreated, even though he was hit several times to no effect. Later on, I got him in the flank, but there was another regular Hetzer which won a fight against the remaining two T34s.

Are T34s really *that* bad? I mean, the Hetzer just got 60mm of armor, so why the hell is this stupid thing invulnerable to my 85mm rounds? If I can't penetrate the frontal armor of a King Tiger ok, after all, I can buy an entire platoon of T34/85s for what one of those monsters costs. But Hetzers?

Russian tankers can't hit the side of a barn at range, and even when they do it seldom has a lot of effect. Avoid long-range armor engagement of any kind. Try to get within 300m. It's difficult, but that's why we play the russians, yes?

The russians didn't win the war on a tactical level; the game reflects this well. They won it by out-producing the germans. I don't think this is reflected enough in the game. So disregard the costs, IMHO they're not balanced. Just know that russian infantry beats german infantry, and anything else german beats it's russian counterpart, usually with a good margin.

/SirReal

[meldorian]

So my experience really wasn't anything uncommon. Thanks. Sometimes I really wonder who came up with the point costs for the german tanks. Some of them really seem to be far to low. A vehicle that can only be defeated by either a JS2 or by flanking it shouldn't be that cheap.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by meldorian:

So my experience really wasn't anything uncommon. Thanks. Sometimes I really wonder who came up with the point costs for the german tanks. Some of them really seem to be far to low. A vehicle that can only be defeated by either a JS2 or by flanking it shouldn't be that cheap.

Not really. A T-34/85 can defeat a Hetzer frontally.

Of course, Hetzer can defeat that T-34 frontally as well, and has a better chance in succeeding, too. Its gun can quite easily kill a T-34, while the 85mm tank gun won't penetrate the Hetzer armour every time at that distance.

What you tried to do was alright as such, you had three to one situation which is a good proportion. It managed to kill one of your tanks and then withdraw, you were unlucky but it happens - if you had a save and reloaded that, you might have killed it without a loss.

One option is to get closer, but that comes always with a risk, too, and sometimes just doesn't work at all. Flanking is usually even more difficult, depending on the general situation and terrain.

To answer the original question, yes. Being unlucky is normal.

[Becket]

I think everyone else has covered it, but just to add my two cents: remember that the T-34 is very, very fast. Use them like the Soviets did -- pedal to the metal to make the engagement as close range as possible. I find that cautious use of T-34s is the best way to get them mauled.

Once you've had a Tiger outflanked and blasted by a T-34 in a PBEM, you won't forget this lesson.

[YankeeDog]

As noted, The Russian 85mm gun has a decent chance of penetrating a Hetzer's frontal armor, even at medium range. The kill % is higher for the Hetzer's 75mm, which substantially overpenetrates the T-34's frontal armor, but neither AFV is likely to last long in a head-to-head slugfest.

IMHO, taking on a Hetzer with T-34/85s in a frontal fight at 3:1 odds is not necessarily a bad idea, depending on the tactical situation - most of the time you are probably going to end up trading one T-34 for the Hetzer, which ain't so bad if you're on the attack. Obviously, I would prefer to engage from the flank where I have a good chance of knocking out the Hetzer for nothing, but against a good player this may not be possible. 700m is also not especially long range, so the Russian tankers will get the range and start scoring hits within a couple of shots most of the time.

IMHO, the big mistake you made was trying to take on the Hetzer while giving the Hetzer the advantages of (1) first shot, (2) hull down position, and (3) a good route of withdrawal. First shot meant that the Hetzer was much more likely to score the first kill on your T-34s, evening the odds somewhat. Hetzers are also especially deadly in hull down, both because reverse slope will often increase the effective armor slope and also because they have a very small profile and no turret - there's very little to hit when they're hull down. Finally, having a good route of withdrawal meant that the Hetzer could ambush your T-34 platoon, pick off a tank, and then back off before superior numbers took its toll.

Even so, in your situation I still think the Hetzer was a bit lucky and if you re-ran the turn a few times, I suspect that often the result would be a 1:1 trade.

As far as the price of the Hetzer, it's important to keep in mind that the point cost reflects the overall usefulness of a unit in all situations, and you were engaging the Hetzer at its best. The Hetzer was designed as a defensive anti-armor weapon. It is very effective in this role, but its usefulness elsewhere is limited. In addition to its lack of a turret, which makes it less effective in a more fluid armor fight, its small ammo load and single MG make it rather weak as an anti-infantry platform. Perhaps its greatest weakness is that its side armor is actually thin enough to be penetrated by ATR fire. As such, even flanking infantry is a major threat to a Hetzer, and it needs the support of other units to survive for long.

Cheers,

YD

[Ant]

Russian tankers can't hit the side of a barn at range, and even when they do it seldom has a lot of effect. Avoid long-range armor engagement of any kind. Try to get within 300m. It's difficult, but that's why we play the russians, yes?

I wish somebody had told that to the two T34/85 crews that came up against my Tiger last night. About 800m range, all three tanks got off several shots. The T34's causing a couple of ricochets and a couple of 'internal armour flakings' before knocking my tiger out. All my tiger shots missed, apart from one which ricocheted. Tiger crew was veteran.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Ant:

The T34's causing a couple of ricochets and a couple of 'internal armour flakings' before knocking my tiger out. All my tiger shots missed, apart from one which ricocheted. Tiger crew was veteran.

Now thats unlucky. Try running that one in the QB a few times, and see what you come up with. I think you'll agree that those T34/85 were just very lucky.

/SirReal

[Ant]

Originally posted by SirReal:

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

The T34's causing a couple of ricochets and a couple of 'internal armour flakings' before knocking my tiger out. All my tiger shots missed, apart from one which ricocheted. Tiger crew was veteran.

Now thats unlucky. Try running that one in the QB a few times, and see what you come up with. I think you'll agree that those T34/85 were just very lucky.

/SirReal </font>

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Ant:

Yeah, that's what I figured. The trouble was the T34's got the first shots off and one of the ricochets killed my TC so that freaked the crew out a bit meaning that they didn't respond as quickly as they should (should that happen with veteran crews) Then one of the internal armour flaking hits took out another crew member

Whenever the TC gets it, the tank is shocked for one minute. I think that happens for every tank, regardless of experience. I don't think the T34/85 can penetrate a Tiger from the front at 700m, so they were very lucky on several points...

- They don't have a high hit probability in the first place

- They're very unlikely to do any damage (gun hit or crew hit due to flaking possible)

/SirReal

[Redwolf]

The performance of the solid AP shot the 85mm gets in April of 44 has been change int he 1.0 patch. It now has substancial trouble against angled fronts like Panther and Hetzer. i also think the curved armor angle distribution has been tuned to higher probablity of high-angle hit, but that may be my imagination.

The available data by Rexford seems to support the newest values (in fact the CMBB values are probably based on Lorrin's research), so I don't really see why there is reason to complain here.

The non-angled armor on a Tiger 1 is not at all that hot, the 85mm can penetrate to around 1000m, both with the few and the old ammo.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The non-angled armor on a Tiger 1 is not at all that hot, the 85mm can penetrate to around 1000m, both with the few and the old ammo.

Yes, it can. But you should add "with luck". Simple tests show that you can get a lucky "weak point penetration", but mostly you'll get "partial penetrations" at best. This at 900-1000m. And that's with the 1944 85L55. The majority of shots that hit will ricochet.

Close the range to 600-700m, and the 85L55 will indeed penetrate, but not with a lot of confidence. And the russians aim still sucks. Putting four Tigers (713pts) versus six T34/85L55 (786pts) at 600m yielded six dead T34, and all Tigers alive. Rerunning that several times more yields much the same result; if the T34's get lucky they'll take out a Tiger, perhaps two, but the T34 all get smoked in the end.

Only when closing the range to 400m and below does the numerical superiority begin to show, as the short range allows the russian tanks to hit and kill.

/SirReal

[Redwolf]

I don't say the T-34/85 wins in a front engagement against a Tiger 1.

I just say the Tiger 1 owner doesn't have to have much luck to lose out nontheless.

Aren't we talking about the Hetzer, anyway?

And BTW, the hit probabilities of the T-34 variants are not that much lower than the German ones. Noticably, but not dramatic. Numerical superiority instantly makes them good. Isn't anybody studying the hit probablities int he editor anymore?

[ August 14, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[MikeyD]

If that Hetzer was also hull-down like your tanks -- on the back side of a hill -- the angle of the ground is included with the vehicle's bow angle. On a 10 degree slope the Hetzer's armor is 10 degrees greater, on a 20 degree slope it's 20 degrees greater. I recall holding off the entire British army with a single hull-down Jpz IV on a slope back in CMBO days. At angles like that there's precious little that could get a reliable penetration!

[Jarmo]

Pricing structure in CM has been debated ever since CMBO came out.

The cheapness of Hetzer has it's reasons:

- No turret, an asset highly valued by BFC price-setter.

- Small amount of ammo, especially for MG.

BFC values anti-infantry capability very highly.

- Slow rate of fire.

- Very weakly armored sides and rear.

It can be killed with .50cal, easily with AT rifles.

- Did it even have a high ground pressure?

Hetzer has just one redeeming quality, the highly sloped armour.

Place it in uphill position to increase the effective angle

and it's very hard to kill indeed...unless flanked.

[ August 14, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[Warmaker]

Also note that the Hetzer has a slow ROF to factor into the cost. Slow ROF, small ammo capacity are huge negatives IMO.

Standing off with German armor without enough numerical superiority isn't the best idea (say 700m+). Sure, the 85mm can kill at that range but German optics and the number of German 75/88mm guns makes life hazardous at those ranges.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

If that Hetzer was also hull-down like your tanks -- on the back side of a hill -- the angle of the ground is included with the vehicle's bow angle. On a 10 degree slope the Hetzer's armor is 10 degrees greater, on a 20 degree slope it's 20 degrees greater. I recall holding off the entire British army with a single hull-down Jpz IV on a slope back in CMBO days. At angles like that there's precious little that could get a reliable penetration!

Are you sure? I knew side angles are calculated but I never knew that slopes would make a difference. Though that would be realistic, of course.

What happens if the target is lower than the gun? Is the armor angle reduced as it would be in RL?

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

What happens if the target is lower than the gun? Is the armor angle reduced as it would be in RL?

I'm going out on a limb here (=I'm guessing), but since the round is ballistically tracked, it wouldn't make sense not to use all the available angles. It's not that much harder.

/SirReal

[Ant]

Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread but just to get back to my tiger for a moment. The T34s seemed very accurate (not one shot missed) so, as the Russians were defending, I've started thinking that the T34s may have been using TRPs. I haven't had much experience using these, can tanks use TRPs? I know AT guns can.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by SirReal:

]I'm going out on a limb here (=I'm guessing), but since the round is ballistically tracked, it wouldn't make sense not to use all the available angles. It's not that much harder.

/SirReal [/QB]

A big selling point in CMBO adverts

"Look 3d angle calculation for armour penetration! Buy now and receive a MADMATT glass of shut the hell up. CMBO proven to increase sexual staying power!"

Yes the latter to are just silly (those halcyon CMBO beta days) but the 3d penetrations were part of the big deal in creating a 3d battle field in the first place.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Bastables:

...but the 3d penetrations were part of the big deal in creating a 3d battle field in the first place.

I was just wondering because I lost some JPz IV/70 (in CMBO) in Hull Down position on the top of a hill against some 76mm guns (Hellcats) in a valley below, about 500m away. Front upper hull penetrations, no weak point. That was really strange, because the Hellcats shouldn´t have managed that even if the IV/70´s armor had been "only" as sloped as it is, much less if sloped positions and hight differences were taken into account.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...but the 3d penetrations were part of the big deal in creating a 3d battle field in the first place.

I was just wondering because I lost some JPz IV/70 (in CMBO) in Hull Down position on the top of a hill against some 76mm guns (Hellcats) in a valley below, about 500m away. Front upper hull penetrations, no weak point. That was really strange, because the Hellcats shouldn´t have managed that even if the IV/70´s armor had been "only" as sloped as it is, much less if sloped positions and hight differences were taken into account. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

The big question on all of these seems to be whether or not the game takes into account gun elevation. While I know that the guns don't have their real elevation and depression limitations, I wonder if the engine still puts them in realistic firing positions.

What I mean is that while the overall slope of the hill might be 10 degrees or whatever, the tank would actually have to find a flatter place to be able to fire from or it wouldn't be able to depress its gun. If firing into a valley it would actually have to find a place facing a little down hill. If this is the case it would make a big difference in what we see on the screen and what is actually happening deep in the bowels of the program.

Remember that in real life taking a hull down position doesn't mean that you have to find one of the gross terrain features to hide behind. Small dips and variations can give the needed cover even if they are too small for the engine to display. I know the game takes these into account for infantry so I would assume they are factored into armor as well.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Really that sounds a bit odd, if you have the save send it to Matt. No more fixs but at least you will find out what went wrong.

I would, but it was a TCP/IP game, so no save...