Soviet gun and ammo

[mav1]

Iam confused. :confused:

I found a diagram in signal (german military magazine or whaterever it is) Stating that a t34/76 could pierce the front armour of a panther at 500m.

Here is the confusion, was it a BR-350a shell, BR-350b or a BR350P. How come not all three shells are in cmbb? What is a BR-350a/b/p shell? Is the 350-p shell thungsten?

I have been given information that the standard 76mm shell can pierce a Tiger side and Stug3 shell at 100m and a thungsten shell can pierce 500m, is this correct.

What are the penetration values of the soviet 85mm gun?

Which is superior the Soviet 85mm gun, german 75/48 gun or American 76mm gun?

In cmbb the Us 76mm seems superior to the Soviet 85mm gun against the frontal armour of a panther tank.

Was the APCR for the t34/76 introduced in late 1942? Is APCR a name for a thungsten shell?

[JasonC]

Russian weapons are systematically undermodeled in CM. I call it the "German physics" factor. Anything they could actually do historically, multiple by a factor of about 0.80 to account for the fanboys advising BTS. Just so you know what you are dealing with. Now to the particulars.

The BR-350A was APC, the BR-350B was the improved APCBC (ballistic cap), which significantly improves penetration against sloped armor in particular. The BR-350P is APCR, tungsten penetrator. Of these only the last is exlicitly shown as a separate type of round in CM - the T ammo. The others are lumoed together as AP, and the improvement fielding the B type involved has to show up as improved ammo modeling etc.

In reality, the Germans themselves state that the front of a StuG - 80mm - was readily penetrated by the Russian 76mm out to 500 yards. In CM, they will bounce down to point blank range. We call this the UberStuG, a phenomenon no one knew about until CMBB appeared (because, natch, it is wrong). StuGs are also given tiny rariety numbers even at the time they were the best couple percent of the German fleet (late 1943 e.g.), and very low prices for lack of turret low MG ammo etc. Expect to see about 40 gazillion times more of them than the Germans actually had.

The T-34s get APCR ammo in CM only starting in 1944. Right in time for it not to make much of a difference because the T-34/85s are already out. Combined with the previous, this makes all the 80mm plates encountered in 1943 much tougher than they actually were.

But at least the Russians have the first SU-85s in the second half of that year. Oops, no not really. Because the ammo modeling of the 85mm in calendar 1943 is so poor, you can bang away at a 30/50 StuG from the front at 800 yards, and see one "shell broke up" result after another. Even the guys who advised them on the ammo model admit that is flat wrong. This also applies to the 85mm AA, which the Russians historically used from the Kursk era on as a tank and mech corps heavy AT weapon. In 1944 the ammo modeling improves and they perform like the stats in the window. Before then, they are barely better than the undermodeled 76mm, instead of being the "animal killers" they ought to be.

The only 1943 animal killer is the SU-152. It is given a ROF of 2 rounds a minute. The SU-122 would be fine with HC (HEAT ammo), so it gets 0 to 4 of them, usually the lower. Towed 122s and 152s aren't in the game, direct fire, so those are out as well.

Historically the performance of the Russian 85mm was better than the US 76mm, but both were roughly the same. The US 76mm suffered from "shatter gap" against roughly 100-110mm plate at medium range, that is accurately modeled but extends to too many other weapons and match ups.

Historically, the US 76mm with plain AP penetrated Panther turret fronts at 400 yards. The theoretical penetration was enough to do so at more like 1000 yards, but the shells failed due to the energy of the collision. That is shatter, and it shows up in CM as "shell broke up" results. The larger 85mm that gets more of its basically similar energy from mass (rather than velocity I mean) was much less susceptible to it. That is not shown in CM until 1944.

Historically you'd kill Tigers by flank and close with T-34Cs. You can in CM, but you need ranges around 100m or APCR or both, and flat side angles. In addition, behind armor effect is poor against large tonnage vehicles. You can expect to need 3-5 penetrations to get a kill result. A single T-34C with T ammo placed 100m from a Tiger side facing it and ready to fire, has approximately a 1 in 5 chance of killing the Tiger before the Tiger kills it.

Which is nonsense of course, Tigers had about that operational record against them without such placement, but we simply put up with it.

In 1944 you can use T-34/85s against Panthers. The 85 is OK by then and will KO them through the turret front out to about 600 yards. Occasional partial penetrations at 800, but you really don't want to trade those. Sides are good against the Panther with 85s or 76s.

As for Tigers in 1944, the T-34/85 can do them, but watch out for the hull down ones. The front turret of the Tiger I is modeled as about 200mm about 2/3rds of the time. (That is what the "reinforced turret front" entry means). The upper front hull is only the real 100mm.

As for Tigers in 1943, forget about the real answer the SU-85, they are neutered by ammo modeling. Forget about the large caliber towed gun solution, since the big ones simply aren't shown and the 85mm AA has its ammo neutered. Forget about SU-122s because they have no HEAT. SU-152s work, with dismal rate of fire.

The best answer though is the 57mm ATG, which can kill them under 400m front aspect or more like 600m side aspect, and is stealthy enough to actually get the shots off. Sometimes you need 3 penetrations etc for behind armor effect reasons.

The other useful 1943 weapon is the T-34/57, when rariety is off. Otherwise the rariety forbids it in expense terms.

Some LL items are useful. The 75L38 Shermans will KO StuGs are 500m when the 76L42 Russian guns will not. The Valentine IX is an affordable 6 pdr when rariety is on, though it is less effective than the Russian 57mm and otherwise a pretty crappy tank by midwar (slow, no MG, limited HE, etc). Captured StuGs can do what SU-85s actually did.

The CM counters to cats are assymmetric fighting. Air support is seriously overmodeled in CM and the IL-2 benefits from that more than any other plane in the game. They aren't sufficient against Tigers, but anything less they simple shred (unhistorically, I might add).

The Russian infantry tank hunter teams get RPG grenades starting in mid 1943, 2/3rds of them. Those regularly hit and kill out to 40m. (Molotovs on the other hand are completely useless). AT minefields and pioneer demo charges and flamethrowers are other cat killers. High caliber arty can do it (usually gun damage or immobilization results rather than KO) if they are directly on a TRP, otherwise the responsiveness makes it impossible.

As for the StuGs, take some 57s, or make a network of 76s with cross fire. And make them turn - vehicle rotation is very slow in CM, the one place turretless actually makes a difference. Beware also of the StuG showing only front armor, angled inward so one flank is deep inside German lines, and at an edge so the other is protected by the bottomless pits at the map edge.

You cannot simply apply the Russian historical tactics against German armor in CM. You have to systematically make more use of the air force, of infantry AT and winning the infantry war more generally, of crossfire and ATG ambush, and of a few relatively rare weapons that are CM effective - the 57mm ATG, the SU-152, the T-34/57, LL vehicles. Mass T-34C rushes at Tigers will get masses of T-34s killed and warm the hearts of the Tiger fish-story fanboys who did all this - don't give them the satisfaction.

[NameUsedBefore]

JasonC, wasn't the StuG the most produced German tank of the war?

Also, I've never understood the "LL" thing with guns. L/76 and others (I think I got that right).

[JasonC]

LL is an abbreviation for lend lease. Not to be confused with a Squad Leader designation of a gun that is many diameters of its caliber in length.

StuGs were produced in large numbers in 1944, and in moderate numbers in 1943, in both cases because all Pz III chassis switched to them (and a few other SPA types on the same chassis etc). But in 1942 they were only a few percent of the vehicle fleet, and half of those out still had short 75s for their infantry support role.

In CM, as soon as the long 75 with 80mm front is out, you see no other German vehicle in QBs. This gives them a vehicle with the approximate fighting power of an historical Elephant a year earlier for a third of the cost, and is the single most wrecked thing in CMBB.

The solution is simply for German players to use Panzer III longs and Marders in 1942, and Panzer IV longs in 1943. In 1944 and after, they can take all the StuGs they like, as the 85mm counters are out by then and ammo neutering has been removed.

If German players won't do that, scenario designers should force it on them anyway, using superior types very rarely. (Instead every third scenario has a platoon of Tigers in 1943). If neither will do so, Russian players should insist on rariety off, and throw history out the window. The Germans already have, in that case.

So the Russians should take 57mm ATGs, SU-152s, T-34/57s, lend lease tanks, and Sturmoviks. Along with winning the infantry war and using the best infantry AT, which means ampulets in 1941-2, RPG THs in 1943, pioneers with DC and FTs throughout, and hidden AT mines throughout. In 1944 the Russians should take 1944 model IS-2s, SU-100s, ISUs, T-34/85s, and more Sturmoviks.

If any German player complains and says he wants to fight T-34/76s and ZIS-3s, tell him to take IIIs and Marders in 1942 and Panzer IVs in 1943, and you will. And that otherwise he can pound sand. Simple.

[Bigduke6]

A few more things that Soviet ammo did in the war, that it fails to do in CM; plus a couple of issues with German ammo engaging Soviet armor, which generally helps give German vehicles in CM an ahistorical advantage.

122/Stalin II - Soviet SOP for this weapon when facing a thick-skinned panzer (say, 100mm armor and up) was, frequently, to use not AP but HE. The logic was that the blast of a 122mm HE shell on the hull of just about anything, was enough to ruin something important inside - machinery, crew, whatever. AP was for when you were sure you would penetrate, otherwise, generally, the preferred round was HE. Generally, the Soviets assumed 122mm would defeat pretty much any German vehicle at normal combat ranges.

Tiger II was an exception but so rare as to not be worth paying attention to. If Stalins met TigerII the drill was superior numbers translating to partial flank shots.

It is worth pointing out that the Soviets never assumed an engagement would be a 1-1 face to face exchange.

But in any case, in CM 122mm HE won't even scratch a Panther turret front. In reality, the Soviets figured if you could catch a Panther with that round at any aspect, the vehicle was going to fail somehow.

Rounded armor on the Stalin -

Another problem with CM is that its approach to a rounded armor face is sort of an on/off deal: either the round is adjudged to strike at an angle, or perpendicular to the plate. If perpendicular then obviously the shell has alot less distance to cover before penetrating.

Stalin II has a rounded turret front, and as a result of the on/off logorithm garden variety German 75mm kills Stalin II quite readily: 2-3 rounds hit, one rolls dice well and gets a perpendicular strike, and goodbye Stalin. This is of course ludicrious, Stalin II crews considered their tank invulnerable to the standard 75mm round at normal combat ranges.

The issue is that RL tank designers used rounded plate not because they liked rolling dice with tank crew lives. After all, if in RL a rounded armor plate gave improved protection only about 60 per cent of the time, and no protection about 40 per cent of the time - as it does in CM - no one ever would have gone to the trouble of installing rounded armor, which of course is more expensive than a flat plate.

In the real deal, the designers knew that an AP shell all other things being equal has real trouble "grabbing" a rounded plate. This is not modeled particularly well in CM. In RL, even when a round does "grab" a rounded plate, chances of a glance are pretty durn high. This does not seem to be the case in CM, when the German 75mm hits a Stalin II in the turret front. I would say every other 75mm AP hitting the front turret of a Stalin will probably penetrate, and every third certainly will penetrate.

Then there is the Stalin's rate of fire. Rezakov says a good crew could manage 3-4 shots a minute. In CM Stalins shoot about 2, or if the crew is elite perhaps 3 shots a minute. This is a 50 per cent degredation in rate of fire; a very significant thing in a tank designed to defeat (almost) all the enemy's tanks in direct engagements.

Result: The Soviet's top tank, the vehicle that they considered invulnderable to pretty much everything but 88mm and up, is in CM for practical purposes only somewhat better armored than the T-34.

All this stuff from the Rezakov account of Russian Battlefield - he was a a Stalin II gunner and then commander.

Ammo Quality - Soviet manufacturing quality, and so the reliability of this round, improved throughout the war. For instance, in the case of the 76mm, Besides the rounds Jason mentioned the Soviets came out with new model of the basic round in 1944, and what's more besides the basic models they did minor improvements on the round throughout the war. Ditto for 45mm, 85mm, etc. The improvements never stopped; a better fuse was just sent to the assembly lines without designating the round to be a new one.

There certainly were ammo quality problems in the first year of the war, however, once pre-war stocks got used up and manufacturing got rolling - teething problems of new rounds aside - the Soviets assumed their shells were solid and reliable. Not perfect, but good enough to fight the Wehrmacht.

CM does an excellent job of replicating the Soviet ammo quality problems at the beginning of the war, however, if you look at the penetration numbers you will see those alleged Soviet ammo problems problems as far as the game is concerned continue through 1943. Even in 1944-45 the improval in performance, that is the penetration numbers, is so marginal as to be immaterial.

This doesn't IMO reflect the reality, which was that by 1943 the Soviets had basically reliable munitions, and that reliablity and performance continued to improve throughout the war.

Armor Quality - Soviet tanks are assumed in CM, usually, to have crappy armor, i.e., whatever armor they have right to the end of the war is assumed to be 90 - 95 per cent of theoretical thickness. The justifications seem to be: (1) allegedly poor Soviet manufacturing techniques, allegedly shoddy Soviet manufacturing tolerances, and allegedly slipshod Soviet worksmanship.

A common "proof" of the last by Westerners trying to demonstrate Soviets fielded crappy equipment is the welding seams on Soviet tanks, which indeed often were neither sanded nor finished. The Soviets of course did that intentionally to save time and labor, but it did make for a less clean-looking tank.

Much of the rest of the alleged problems with Soviet armor quality present in CM, were arguably not the case in the war. It is a fairly arcane arguement, and one can find evidence that both Western and Soviet tanks had the better armor.

What one cannot find is conclusive proof Western armor was better in quality than Soviet all the way through 1944, never mind 1945. This is the case in CM - and really is not justifiable; unless of course one is reading only Western sources.

This is not a propaganda issue. The Soviets and their historians were very straightfoward when a foreign weapon outperformed one of their own - a nitpick with Jason's description above is that when the Soviet researchers at Kubinka got around to shooting up a Tiger II hulk to see what would penetrate it, their results make clear the U.S. 76mm outperforms the Soviet 85mm.

The Soviets generally were of the opinion that the armor in their vehicles was on a par with the German in terms of metal quality, with the Germans holding a moderate advantage rolling plate, and the Soviets casting. I have seen claims Soviet cast armor outperformed a similar thickness of German rolled plate; this IMO is a bit iffy.

What is not iffy is that the Soviets understood the science of mettalurgy thoroughly, and that somehow the Soviet histories, and indeed combat reports, make the Soviet tanks seem a bit tougher than they seem to be in CM.

Soviet Gun Performance Numbers - CMBB's designers did an excellent job finding, and applying, the gun penetration data the Red army used, i.e., if the records listed the 76mm gun should penetrate 80mm of plate at 300 meters in such-and-such a year, then the game reflects that. Same deal for German vehicles, BTW.

What the game does not reflect, IMO, is that Soviet definitions of what constitutes pentration were, it seems, a bit more rigorous than German. For example, the Germans assumed penetration at a given range if the shell went fully through 5 times out of 10. The Soviet standard was 8 times out of 10.

There are other wrinkles to these number crunching exercises like what was the Brinell hardness of the test armor plate, weather conditions during the test, how much of the AP round actually had to get through the plate to constitute penetration, etc.

In pretty much all these categories the Soviet standard was marginally higher than the German, from what I can gather. As a result, if you take German and Soviet penetration data "raw", and stick it into a computer game, you will give German weapons a marginal performance bump.

And that bump, plus all the above minor stuff, adds up to sometimes surprisingly weak Soviet AP performance in CM viz. German vehicles.

It's fairly arcane and far from every CM player thinks the Soviets got short-changed. I definately do, but I think it is a bit much to expect the designers to have predicted all this arcane stuff ahead of time. Some of it (I think) got treated in the patches, but IMO not all of it and not enough.

Oh well. We Soviet players live with it.

[ September 16, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Inola]

As I heard from man, who was CMBB advisor from Russian Battlefield site, that all penetration tables were compared and changed due to different definitions of penetration phenomenon from both sides-nearly 10%.

[John Kettler]

Threads like this one only make me renew my urgent plea to BFC to fix glaring ahistorical errors like these in both CMBB and the CMBB result generator in CMC before releasing the latter game. I really wish 122s and 152s had been modeled for DF (the tracked unpowered 203 would've been awesome), especially in late war streetfighting, but some would've been seen at Kursk and such, too.

I tried very hard to get DF Katyushas into CMBB but was completely rebuffed, despite their having been repeatedly used this way and written up in Biryukov & Melnikov's ANTITANK WARFARE. FWIW, the PTRS/PTRD doesn't seem to pose a threat against many German AFVs, when in reality it did via attacks on cupolas and other vulnerable points. I've seen a translated German combat readiness report in which ATR fire against the cupolas sidelined an entire Tiger Kompanie after Kursk. Not only were the tanks unfightable because of smashed vision blocks, but there were several injured TCs, one of whom spent several weeks in the hospital after having the block's bracket driven into his face.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sigrun]

Exert from a Tiger company's AAR and combat evaluation document, Jan 29th 1943 (page 244 of Otto Carius' 'Tigers in the Mud')

"At no time did fire from 76.2mm anti-tank guns result in penetration or heavy damage among the Tigers of our company."

In 30 years of reading I've absorbed enough data to know CMBB's modelling is practically spot on. That is to say, nothing about the performance of the armor leads me to feel that anything is wrong or odd or stands out as incorrect.

Other games, of whatever genre, continue to suffer the usual bias of allied weaponry being over-modelled, whilst axis equipment is nerfed. I offer you RO (Red October) as the latest victim of such revisionist BS, that nonetheless claims "simulation standard".

CMBB is a breath of fresh, and honest, air. Otherwise known as integrity.

[Sigrun]

"Historically you'd kill Tigers by flank and close with T-34Cs. You can in CM, but you need ranges around 100m or APCR or both, and flat side angles. In addition, behind armor effect is poor against large tonnage vehicles. You can expect to need 3-5 penetrations to get a kill result. A single T-34C with T ammo placed 100m from a Tiger side facing it and ready to fire, has approximately a 1 in 5 chance of killing the Tiger before the Tiger kills it.

Which is nonsense of course, Tigers had about that operational record against them without such placement..."

Absolute rubbish! Where did you get such nonsense?! Apart from the fact that the T34/76 was hardly the main course by the time Tigers were deployed in significant numbers, the Tigers did far better than 5-1 against the superior breed of T34, the T34/85. Try 10-1 and you'll be in the right ballpark. A very conservative one.

[walpurgis nacht]

Though all things Russian may be undermodeled in CM, can you imagine what would happen to gameplay if the adjustments were made? I'm sure the point ratios or other things could be tweaked, but em . . . the Russians already completely DOMINATE as is.

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by walpurgis nacht:

Though all things Russian may be undermodeled in CM, can you imagine what would happen to gameplay if the adjustments were made? I'm sure the point ratios or other things could be tweaked, but em . . . the Russians already completely DOMINATE as is.

The allied players are able to out-number the axis by virtue of cheaper kit (as it should be), and have the advantage of tactical 20/20 hindsight (it's a game after all).

No game could ever replicate the real deal with perfect fidelity, but with all caveats considered CMBB has managed almost complete perfection, at least at a single game /single operation level. Configuring it for an online war has proved more difficult, but it was never designed for that in the first place.

I think Jason needs to get his head out of the technical tables for a while and read some actual first-hand combat accounts. There meets theory with reality, and theory usually comes out second best.

No offence meant Jason, just barracking you a tad.

[Bigduke6]

Sigrun,

Jason I am sure will be along in a bit to enlighten you on what he has read, and not read. You better be sitting down.

As for me, I'd like to direct your attention to this exhibit, which I referred to earlier but you might not have had to the time to take a look at:

http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=19〈=ru

If you can read it, you will see it is a memoir by one Mikhail Gregorievich Reznikov, a gunner and commander on Stalin II from 1943 - 1945, with all sorts of combat experience. He said he was personally responsible for 8 kills, which to me helps give the account credibility. He was in 57th Heavy Guards Tank Regiment of 3rd Guards Tank Army.

As you can see, reading Reznikov's account we are left with a contradiction. Either Reznikov is lying, or real-life Stalins were tougher than CM Stalins.

If you cannot read the account, then I would ask you, how much of your reading included Russian-language accounts.

And if the answer is "little to none," then perhaps you can anticipate my next question.

This is not to get into a my-sources-are-better-than-yours piddling contest; in any case neither you nor I will prove anything here. I agree with you CMBB gets most stuff very accurately.

But in my opinion, based on what I have read in both German and Russian, not all. 45mm and 76mm are undermodeled alot, Soviet tank armor and 85mm is undermodeled a bit, and the logarithms the game uses to calculate penetration by design ignore the effect of cumulative hits and only weakly reflect disabling fire aimed at running gear - both standard Soviet responses to thick German armor.

As Walpurgis points out, an experienced player can compensate very effectively for many of these "artificial" Soviet weaknesses. Once one learns how to use them a CM player can use Soviets to fight Germans quite well.

What our good buddy Walpurgis is not mentioning, however, is that, in most cases, one must get a lot of games under one's belt to figure out how to command Soviets. I think he would agree with me that to get maximum milage out of Soviets, you have to be a better CM player than if you set yourself the goal of getting maximum performance out of Germans.

Especially if it's an armor fight.

For beginning and intermediate players, especially where armor is involved and even more where it is pre-dominant, commanding Germans is easier - and the generally weakened effectiveness of Soviet AP is a key reason why.

[JasonC]

Sigrun believes Signal magazine propaganda, aka Tiger Tales, which are taller than tall and fishier than fish, and evaporate under scrutiny.

Let's look at it again, for the nth time. He thinks Tigers scored at least 10 to 1 against even improved Russian tanks, and that it is rubbish to think they averaged more like 5 to 1. By rubbish I assume he means demonstrably false, well known to be low by a factor of 2 or more, contrary to everything we know, etc. And it isn't.

If you nose around trying to find out where the notion comes from, you will find 2 major sources. German side kill claims by Tiger battalions, and individual incident reports. The former will run 10 to 14 to one in claimed kills vs. reported own-side TWOs. The latter will featured detailed accounts of single platoons KOing up to 14 enemy tanks per Tiger in one engagement - occasionally a spread of 2-3 days in the same location - typically without any reported loss. Often presented as typical, sometimes played up as particularly glorious.

So first test, take it literally and look at the battle of Kursk, or the summer 1943 campaign more generally (both), and deduce the consequences. This was the period (moment would perhaps be a more accurate word) of the greatest tactical ascendency of the Tiger. SU-85s were not out yet, Tigers were fielded in meaningful numbers, other large SUs were very rare, there were no T-34/85s, etc. If Tigers racked up 14 to 1 or 14 to 0 kill scores, either overall or in single outings, this is when they would have to exceed those levels. (All averages have higher and lower periods etc).

We know how many Russian tanks were lost in the Kursk defensive phase. It was 1614. Zetterling, a German side and sympathetic source. The Russians give statistical breakdowns of their tank losses by caliber of the weapon that KOed them, specifically for Kursk. They can't tell one 88 from another, since all they have is the size of the hole. But we can account for all the 88s tactically being used and apportion the 88 caliber kills over them. The portion of tanks lost at Kursk to 88 caliber weapons was about 25%. Math says, 88 caliber kills at Kursk defensive are 404. (Incidentally, that period covers 5 July to 23 July and 3 Fronts).

What weapons are doing that? 146 Tigers, 98 Elephants, 90 Nashorns, and 128 towed 88 Flak in the engaged Panzer divisions. There were also many more 88s with Flak formations but we can discount those. The average 88 caliber weapon at the battle of Kursk KOed 1 count 'em 1 Russian tank, TWO - even if you count the towed 88s only half of the value of the vehicles. Undoubtedly the Tigers and Elephants scored higher than the other types, due to superior armor and ease of use. OK, if they got all of them that comes to less than 2, and they didn't get all of them.

So much for the idea that every Tiger KOed 14 tanks per afternoon without loss. Taken literally, the period 5 to 13 July would have been sufficient to KO 16350 tanks not counting the Elephants etc, which is more like Russian losses for 1943 all sources and 10 times what they lost to all sources in Kursk defensive.

Suppose we give the following effectiveness coefficients to the 88 weapons. You can pick any other set you think is plausible, just so you give it here and defend the ratios with reasoning. To get a range, I give first my actual assessments of their ability and then a Tiger-generous set. Tiger 1, Elephant 1, Nashorn .5, towed 88 .125 - 305 total, or Tiger 1, Elephant .5, Nashorn .2, towed .0625, total 221. Those imply average Tiger kills in the range 1.32 to 1.83 - not per outing, over the entire battle of Kursk.

22.5% of the Tigers engaged at Kursk were TWO in July. If you divide by those you get 5.84 to 8.13 as an exchange ratio - 6-8 as a range and 7 as an expected. This overstates the actual knockout ratio, however. Because, by 13 July halfway through the period, the Kursk force was down to a dozen operational Tigers, which rebounded to around 37 by the end of the period in large part because 22 new Tigers arrived. (Actually 33 sent, but some don't reach the field until after the fight). The rest were in the workshops.

If we expand the period covered to all of July through September and all parts of the front, the Russian tank losses are much higher at 8953 (Zetterling). We don't know the exact portion of that KOed by 88 caliber, because the loss breakdown survey from the Russians was for Kursk specifically. The portion KOed by 75mm had to increase, because the longer period is dominated by Russian attacks not defense, against IDs with PAK and StuGs as well as PDs with mostly long IVs etc. The effectiveness of the less heavily armored types also has to increase on defense. Probably the causes of loss shifted away from 88s because many 88 weapon varieties were knocked out at Kursk offensive, in an operational sense if not yet TWO.

But ignore all that and assume the 25% ratio holds for the much larger figure over 3 full months, and that Tiger Is constitute 3/8s to 1/2 of 88 kills about as before. Then we get 2238 as an very generous upper bound on total Russian tank losses to all 88 caliber weapons in the period July-September 1943 inclusive, and 840 to 1120 as the Tiger portion. The weapons doing it expand - more Tigers were sent east after the offensive phase, etc. What we know for certain is 138 Tiger Is were TWO over that period. Which gives 6 to 8 again.

Ergo, at the period of their greatest tactical ascendency Tiger Is might have racked up an average operational score of 7 to 1 before loss. They aren't killing 14 a day, they aren't killing 14 a month, they are killing more like 2, or 3 a month if they are lucky. How can that happen? Well, ask yourself how much of its service life a Tiger spends in the repair shops and you've got a start on the answer.

Next let us consider the war as a whole. There were 1350 Tiger Is fielded and about 500 Tiger IIs, out of a tank fleet of 45000 and a PAK fleet just as large, with ~35k of each later war types, most of them used in the east. Russians lost 100,000 tanks to all causes over the whole war, at least a quarter of them before Tigers were fielded and at least 15000 of them to infantry weapons later (from German tank killer medal awards). There are 60k later war eastern front PAK and AFVs chasing 60k Russian AFV losses. The average AFV can do better than unity only because the PAK are doing less than unity, and a straight AFV loss ratio cannot exceed 2 to 1 average. Tigers and Panthers can only do better than 2 to 1 average is some other variety (StuGs, Panzer IVs, etc) does worse than 2 to 1.

But if the Tigers are supposed to do 10 to 1, they account for 18500 dead AFVs on their own, perhaps 15k in the east. That is a quarter of all losses to be apportioned among 60,000 weapons to just 1500 of them, and is wildly implausible. Suppose the PAK only get 1/6th, that leaves 50k for 30k AFVs, and suppose the StuGs and IVs and other assault guns get unity.

That leaves around 20k kills for 5k Panthers and 1.5k Tigers. The Tigers can only average 10 if the Panthers average only 1, which is wildly implausible. If the Panthers average 2 the Tigers can average 7 (which we've seen before haven't we?), if the Panthers are as good as the Tigers they can all average only 3. Tigers significantly better but the Panthers about as much better than the IVs as the Tigers are better than them, you get 1 for the vanilla types, 2.5 for Panthers, and 5 for Tigers.

The average weapon system never KOs an equal enemy weapon system. Most weapons are targets as much as shooters. Only above average weapons KO significant numbers of equivalent enemy weapons. The Tiger was certainly an above average weapon and it did so. But it did not on average KO an order of magnitude more in a single outing without loss, nor over its entire service life including several rounds of repair.

Notice also that the German staffers themselves knew enough to give own side kill claims a 50% haircut for operational planning purposes, and a 50% haircut applied to the 10 to 14 to one ratio of claims to acknowledged own TWOs gives exactly the same range of 5 to 7 over operational life. Anybody can get doubled ratio claims by comparing own claims taken literally to known TWOs fully verified.

I'm playing a QB now in which my opponent spent his entire armor budget on 1 green Tiger I (in late 1942 lol). It is turn 3 and the thing is bogged 150m from his start line. Art imitates...

[Sigrun]

I think trying to tackle your arguments on a like-for-like basis would be like going up against a Tiger with ten T34/85's. I'd lose every one of them. <snigger>

What I do know, from combat accounts on both sides, is that the only way a T34/76 had any chance against a Tiger was by getting right up it's arse at point-blank range. That didn't happen often, and Kursk was hardly typical.

T34/85s were normally engaged at ranges greater than their ability to return effective fire. I've lost count of how many accounts I've read of buttoned T34s being picked off one by one by Tigers (and other tanks), un-spotted or unable to even hit in return, never mind kill.

Your maths look impressive, but they don't make a lot of real-world sense. You seem to think that the number of killed T34s are somehow bound to be shared out equally amongst all German armor types. Do you actually have hard evidence, figures, that indicate exactly how many tanks, by type, each type of German tank killed?

Nor do I, but I've read plenty of anecdotal evidence from the chaps doing the killing to reckon a 10-1 ratio, Tiger vs T34 (whatever model) is plenty reasonable, including claims of such by those chaps themselves.

I can see you're a bit of an allied fan-boy Jason, and there's nothing unusual or wrong with that. You'll just have to try and match your very impressive, but not perfect, knowledge with a bit of objective acceptance that the German Panzer Corp absolutely slaughtered the Soviet tank armies all the way from 1941 to 1945. Lucky the Sovs had as many men and tanks as they did.

And CMBB does an excellent job of allowing that reality to be simulated, when a good player is at the German helm.

[JasonC]

There are no competent German players in CM. I wouldn't have thunk it, but it must be so, since apparently they always lose despite their epic overmodeled uber equipment.

They all whine about how unfair it is and how much they lose all the time, when they have overmodeled equipment out the whazoo. They just haven't the slightest idea how to use it, I guess. Men who've hobbled around on crutches for years generally don't win races, either.

The Panzer IV long is considered by most German players in CMBB to be a piece of crap because it possesses one front plate that can be penetrated at medium range by the standard heavy Russian AT weapon, the 76L42. Half the time the shell will bounce; its own gun kills anything in reply; it has superior optics crew command time turret speed, adequate HE MGs flotation and mobility, etc.

They never take it, they think it is useless. If Russians had a vehicle that killed everything at km ranges with full ROF and a fast turret we'd rave about everything you can accomplish with them. The difference is simply that they can't drive, I guess.

Then there is the constant whining about inferior infantry, because the PPsH is overmodeled. As though it is more important to have 14 fp per SMG extra at 40m than to have high ammo HMGs with twice the firepower, great stealth, etc. It is because they don't know how to use them. Then the Germans get epic on map gun firepower, but German players whine that mortars just KO them so they aren't any good, only a Tiger lives long enough to shoot things. Waa, we need overmodeling or we'd lose, waa.

What passes for tactical advice to German players on this board is to hotrod in SPWs because it is better than being exposed on the deck of a tank. It takes about 45 minutes to establish that the points spent on SPW lift for squad infantry just loses to the Russian system of more armor instead.

It is left to someone usually giving advice to Russians to tell German players when they get SMG infantry and what types.

Experienced German players advanced the opinion that it was impossible to attack Russian infantry on a small 300 point map, especially with limited cover, even with attack odds and even against the mere AI. It took me all of 30 minutes to show it is easy and can be done with less than 10 casualties and total victory in less than 15 minutes. With cover consisting of 4 tiles of marsh in the set up zone, and 3 shellholes 200m away, and an infantry force type.

Crutches make tactical cripples.

[JasonC]

As for history and Tigers, yeah you can read a lot of things in Signal magazine, and two or three of them have some relation to reality.

Like how devastingly effective the Tigers were in the epic final melee at Pro. - until oops, somebody brings up that there were all of 4 Tigers operational in the entire corps at that date.

I told you what is known about specific causes of loss. Tanks don't sign their kills, but 88mm holes aren't 75mm across. Only 400 Russian tanks were killed at Kursk defensive by all 88 caliber weapons. Did Elephants get none? Or have you read the same stories about them as about turreted Tigers? Maybe they are worth half, it is still sufficient to establish that the average Tiger at Kursk KOed 2 Russian tanks, no more.

"But it doesn't make common sense - surely my Tiger will always kill 10 T-34s". Um, in AD Kempf one Tiger company ran into a minefield on the opening day, got stuck there, took ATG fire at range while stuck, and ended the day with zero kills and 3 vehicles operational. Sometimes a tank is hit before it hits anything, then it wracks up a total of "zero". When another gets 4, they together average 2. Signal magazine rarely writes up the "zero"s, you see. Just aren't considered all that inspiring.

There is no operational sign of them, either. Russian tank forces attack here and there all along the line, and some places they succeed and others they fail. If you look for which is which, you find things like a more alert German ID or IC commander, adequate reserves of PDs right behind the line (with Pz IVs), or green and arrogant commanders on the Russian side. Not - wherever there are Tigers they fail, wherever there aren't they succeed. Doesn't happen. You can find maybe 3-5 incidents in the whole course of the war where Tiger anything had the slightest operational effect, compared to a Pz IV battalion being on the scene.

If the 14 to 1 without loss fish stories were truely typical, every place a Tiger battalion was sent on the map it would behave operationally like an extra Panzer corps. It doesn't happen.

[ September 17, 2006, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tactical Command]

There are no competent German players in CM....

The problem is that although minor axis forces can be cheap the German stuff isn't.

I understand where you are coming from Jason, however, as you have mentioned on several occasions you rarely play CM against human opponents.

It would have been great if Battlefront had allowed people to modify the data values, so, people could play the game any way they want to but that isn't how it is. Battlefront seems to have made some compromises in order to please the people who want to play the game against a human adversary. From a financial point-of-view it is hard to argue against what they did.

[JasonC]

You are apparently unable to detect my dripping irony. I thought I made that plain when I wrote "I wouldn't have thunk it, but it must be so" - because people here are telling me the Russians absolutely dominate despite all the pro German overmodeling in the game, and the equipment virtues (and for the Russians, deficiencies) those are meant to reflect. Of course Germans can win, and many do, often easily.

[mav1]

Well if a eastern front game appears in cmx2,People who believe that soviet afv's are undermodelled and german afv's over modeled will have to speak out in the forum otherwise the same thing will happen in cmx2 as in cmx1.

[Gazer]

I have played several PBEM games against a human opponent as Axis. I generaly lose every time. The only exeption is in mid war with Tigers on my side. It's just unbalanced. We also never play quick battles and in our battles the experience level of both sides is similar.

Scenario makers tend to put a lot of cool (read expensive) stuff for Germans. I would really like to lose some "uber" qualities for numbers. I don't need Tigers, PzIV is great, but I need more of them. What I usually get is either Tigers or a decent mix of armor and infantry dumbed down with a bunch of halftracks and I end up against superior numbers even when I am attacking. In my opinion most scenario designers are victims of western cold war propaganda by trying to portrait german army as either superior quality (Tigers) or more advanced/modern by creating the image of a mechanized force with halftracks. This is not very teaching (tigers) nor fun (halftracks) for the axis side player.

Maybe I'm just rambling here, but I think that the failure to modell russian armor like it should be combined with scenario makers who are just humans has resulted in problems for the german player in many scenarios. You either get the big cats against T-34's from the scenario designers who believe in german propaganda or you get the more "historical" force mix dumbed down by halftracks. You either go for the high ground with your Tiger or you go for the cover with your halftracks.

Ok, this post has been a bit off topic. I just want to say that due to modelling and play balancing reasons the available battles favor an experienced soviet player in CMBB. They get numbers and know how to use the usually good enough or just plain better soviet equipment.

Think how much good stuff a soviet player will get in a meeting engagement where the german player gets a couple of PzIV's, several platoons of light tanks and one mounted panzer grenadier company with their expensive halftracks.

Or maybe I'm just not very good in this game.

[Andreas]

Just find scenario designers who are not infatuated with 'cool' German kit.

I know at least one.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

I think you aren't very good at this game. You may have company, however.

Yes you can wreck a force that is point-balanced by taking tons overpriced and relatively useless light armor. Strangely enough, German side advisors actually advocate it. You have to take tons of it though, to wreck your force this way. One panzergrenadier platoon, dismounted and the SPWs used to reposition guns and teams, is fine.

It is just an excuse. What I think is actually going on is poor armor war tactics as a result of training on uber stuff - weaker camp equals stronger school etc - and German side players are trying too much razzle dazzle and haven't embraced firepower principles. Nobody forces poor force mix choices on the Germans, and they have tons of great stuff, some of it ridiculously cheap as well.

[Sigrun]

Jason, you place too much emphasis on me reading Signal (only ever read Luftwaffe articles, online) and too much on Kursk (un-representative of typical Tiger vs T34 engagements).

I was on the crapper half an hour ago, re-reading Otto's 'Tigers in the Mud', and went through a typical AAR in which three Tigers (started with two, a third came up later) took out thirty four T-34s (and a KV1 and a bunch of ATs and infantry) for zero loss over a period of four or five days, both offensively and defensively. Those kinds of accounts are hum-drum typical in the stuff I've read and still read.

As for all the comments on force selection etc, I kind of thought my online war would offer an interesting solution to that...too few purchase points, lots of players demanding as many of them as they could get and the generals getting ulcers as a result.

[Bigduke6]

Sigrun,

I've read Tigers in the Mud as well, twice. I say, it is a big mistake to take a battle report at face value, and it is an even bigger mistake to take an unverified battle report at face value, but both of those errors are a magnitude smaller, than trying to interpet military history using the biased accounts of one side.

When Carius writes he offed dozens of T-34s, at best, we can only be confident that's what he thought happened.

Mathematically, Carius' claims are absurd. Jason's point stands. If Tigers destroyed T-34s at the rates you are talking about, they would have destroyed every T-34 the Soviets ever produced, and more besides. Perhaps in a rare situation where the Tiger was in a perfect firing position and a Soviet company or battalion commander made a truly epic error, then maybe the Tiger could wax a bunch of T-34s. Maybe, of all the Tigers in the entire war, one actually managed incredible kill rates, and how lucky we are his name was Carius and he wrote a book.

But the Soviet tankers were not stupid, and they had a real incentive to keep Tigers from smashing their T-34s, because the penalty for letting a Tiger do that very often was death by immolation. People under that kind of threat think of counter-measures.

Even worse for myth purveyors like Carius, and in spite of Cold War propaganda, the Soviets were literate and quite serious about military science and history - and much of it is quite available.

You didn't respond to my remarks about Reznikov who, as I noted earlier, fought from '43 on in a IS-2 and seems to have a lot more confidence in the vehicle, than I have in IS-2 in CM. So I am still wondering if you took the time to look at the account.

In the spirit of expanded horizons, here's another linky:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123〈=ru

At the risk of anticipating, this is an account of testing done on a Tiger II hulk at Kubinka firing range, during which time a Soviet 122AP is shot through the front of the Tiger. Not possible in CM.

Here at this linky:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123〈=ru

is a delightful account of the first major TigerII attack on the East Front, at Sandomirz Poland. 501st Independent Heavy Panzer Abteilung (Tiger II) Tigers ran into a buzz saw of T-34s and Stalins (52nd and 53rd Guards Tank Brigade, and 57th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment), all of 6th Guards Tank Corps.

During combat on 13 August 1944 Guards Senior Lieutenant V.A. Udalov destroyed 3 x Tiger II, burning two, with fire from his Stalin II. The shortest engagement range was 800 meters, the longest 1200. All engagements were frontal.

I would add the source is Soviet combat reports for internal use, and opened to the public after the break-up of the Soviet Union.

I would say that is at least as reliable a source as Carius, who after all was a former Tiger commander and Nazi war hero writing a book that, if it sold well to WW2 buffs interested but not particularly well-informed about Tiger tanks, would make him money.

Using your logic I can conclude from the Soviet account:

1. Stalin II should defeat Tiger II frontal armor at normal combat ranges.

2. Stalins II in general should out-kill Tiger II 3-1.

I don't make those conclusions, as knowledge of military history takes more than uncritical reading of the memoirs of one side.

Perhaps you might mention some of the Soviet sources you have uncovered in your extensive reading that supports the arguement that Tigers killed Soviet tanks at 10-1 exchange rates or better.

[Sigrun]

BigDuke, I did check that first link you posted, but it was all in Russian and neither the UK version nor the translation function made any difference.

Regarding the veracity of Otto Carius' recollections, I take them largely at face value for the same generical reason I discount most Soviet accounts as blatant lies...the average German officer was educated, honourable and truthful whilst the average Soviet officer was little better than an animal. Let's not forget the behaviour of these vermin at the fall, a stain upon Russia's 'honour' that will never be wiped clean. Trust their AARs? I think not.

The same thing as you say above about Carius was said about Luftwaffe pilots and their kill numbers...until they were verified by historians much later, doing proper research.

I believe approx 1200 Tigers were deployed on the Eastern Front. A 10-1 ratio would give a figure of 12,000 T-34s destroyed by Tigers in total. Considering there were approx 60,000 T34s deployed by the Soviets during WW2 I do not consider 12,000 to be even remotely unreasonable. Indeed, as I said earlier, that would be conservative. MkIVs didn't have the same clout, all the assault guns struggled and only the Panther could, and did, do better (as they should, there were considerably more of them, they had a more powerful cannon and only little less effective armor, by virtue of slope).