Is this the Tiger I we see in CMBB?

[Alarmer]

A really good article imho.

I have wondered the armor strongness in CMBB and because its easy to penetrate T34 front turret with PZ3 50mm/60 gun from ranges around 500m (knocked out 3 t34 with 2 pz3 , all with frontal penetrations) .

So gotta question Tiger I performance too a little bit, in CMBB you hardly ever see a tank with stand many AP rounds :/

what you think?

[Alarmer]

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/3457/tiger1.htm

and the article

[Soddball]

What particular aspect of the Tiger are you questioning?

Oh, and which T-34 are you talking about front turret penetrations on with the 50mm/L60?

[Monty's Double]

Dammit man, do some work. While you were busy shooting your mouth off I was checking my facts. Having done so I can confidently declare:

"DO A SEARCH!"

Here's a free one to get you started:

t34 armour thread number 84,306

[Alarmer]

Yep I meant the 50/L60 ..

Now everywhere i read it should be "impossible" to penetrate T34 frontal turret. I check the penetration table and compare it to T34 frontal armor values and angles, shouldnt be possible. :/

I just readed a post here about armor strongness and T34 should be stronger. I allways destroy T34 from front (since they are hard to flank in cmbb) but in war stories and combat manuals they say it should be only possible with side/rear close range hits. Iam now talking early was 41/42 equipment like pz3.

No need to yell , i just wanted to bring the article up since i considered it a good read. And at the same ask some simple questions

[Alarmer]

Darn wheres the edit..

Iam talking about early war T34, 41 year mostly. We are playing early war battles with friend and iam usually beating him with ease with 4xpz3 vs around 3xt34 .

I havent played with Tigers much yet since we are advancing couple monts per game. But if T34 are easy to pop up with early pz3 I wonder if Tiger I are having the same kinda bad habit? I havent doned any tests atleast yet :/

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Alarmer:

Darn wheres the edit..

Iam talking about early war T34, 41 year mostly. We are playing early war battles with friend and iam usually beating him with ease with 4xpz3 vs around 3xt34 .

I havent played with Tigers much yet since we are advancing couple monts per game. But if T34 are easy to pop up with early pz3 I wonder if Tiger I are having the same kinda bad habit? I havent doned any tests atleast yet :/

Then do some tests. T-34s are not invulnerable,nor should they be. Your early T-34 is supremely vulnerable and some of the reasons are - cramped turret so lower Rate of Fire than Panzer III, no radio or cupola so slower response time than Panzer III. The gun should be able to penetrate the T-34s and the reason you're losing your tanks is probably partly due to the two reasons I've listed.

Alternatively, your gameplay could just suck.

Have you been and read the FAQ thread?

[Thin Red Line]

Alarmer,

It has been discussed a thousand times, but a few thoughts.

1) How historical is a meeting of 3 PIII 50mm with 3 T-34s modele 41 ?

2) Does your historical sources describe a battle of PIII 50mm vs T-34s modele 41 and state penetration is impossible ? If yes, what are your sources ?

3) Why is your opponent coming as close as 500m if penetration by 50mm AP is not possible in-game above than this range ? If i were him, i would safely kill your panzers from 1500m away...

4) If you haven't done it yet i recommend you to play 'Katukov strikes back' and 'The Gate keepers' scenarios from the cd (against human of course) as the Germans. I learned much from them

Regards

Nicolas

[Alarmer]

1) How historical is a meeting of 3 PIII 50mm with 3 T-34s modele 41 ?

I really dont know, could you enlighten me thanks.

2) Does your historical sources describe a battle of PIII 50mm vs T-34s modele 41 and state penetration is impossible ? If yes, what are your sources ?

Dont have no sources I have been looking for good eastern front book but have not yet successed. I just compared CMBB in game data and well, they say its pretty impossible :/

3) Why is your opponent coming as close as 500m if penetration by 50mm AP is not possible in-game above than this range ? If i were him, i would safely kill your panzers from 1500m away...

We have gamed meeting engagements. So both have used tanks to support infantry to capture objectives.

Ill try those scenarios

ps. My knowledge of eastern front is limited. I asked for advice in my last thread " how to create historical quick battle" , but didint get too much help.

I know T34 in beginning of war wasnt really common enemy , t34 and kv1 were about 20% of russias tank force , right? so i guess 3xpz3 vs 3xt34 isnt quite realistic..

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Alarmer:

1) How historical is a meeting of 3 PIII 50mm with 3 T-34s modele 41 ?

I really dont know, could you enlighten me thanks.

I know T34 in beginning of war wasnt really common enemy , t34 and kv1 were about 20% of russias tank force , right? so i guess 3xpz3 vs 3xt34 isnt quite realistic..

I also believe it was not a typical battle in early war.

[Alarmer]

I have been looking for good eastern front book but then again I think iam asking too much when i want it to have overall info on big battles and about small skirmishes (what we are playing in CMBB) .

I got a good answer from a fellow in last thread that with allmost 100% chance everykinda battle you imagine in CMBB was in eastern front thanks to huge scale , but still i would like some realistic standards to Quick Battles.

Too bad nobody has doned any kinda general list and tips about creating a good realistic Quick battles. Or I just havent found it yet.

[MikeyD]

When CMBO first came out back last century a general uproar started over the relative strengths and weaknesses of various pieces of armor in the game, and it hasn't stopped yet.

Unlike some (most) games CMBB doesn't estimate strengths and weaknesses by the seat of the pants, but uses real armor specs vs real projectile performance at real angles and ranges. The level of scholarship in producing CM is mind boggling. More that one piece of conventional wisdom has gone down in flames due to this game.

[Alarmer]

Yes i forgotted, the Armor strengh tables may vary because of the speed of projectile and ammo type etc. My mistake.

Guess iam just one of those guys who read lots of authentic war stories and want to see em come real in CMBB. I understand the "stories" are just mayby lucky individuals. Otherwise there wouldnt have been any destroyed Tigers or T34 i guess

[Thermopylae]

Don't forget that the armor quality comes into play when measuring thickness, the angle of the shooter to target can dcrease deflective power, and said curved turret really isn't TOO much of a stopper. The actual quirk I've heard about is that because the tanks are hit according to a basic profile rather than inidividual model silhouettes, some turrets get hit more than they should, etc.

[MikeyD]

Alarmer writes:

"I understand the "stories" are just mayby lucky individuals."

Yeh, to get a truely authentic war story the anectode should end "...and then I died." Those close-combat survival stories on the Eastern Front are more 'man-bites-dog' anomalies.

[YankeeDog]

A few thoughts:

The issue of early T-34 front turret vulnerability has indeed been discussed in considerable detail already. JasonC in particular, has made strong arguments that the effectiveness of the front turret armor of the T-34 might be somewhat undermodeled in CMBB. As I understand it, much of Jason's argument has to do with the way CM models 'curved' armor, but there are other issues as well. Rather than attempting to repeat Jason's argument here, I would suggest doing a search for recent posts by him if you would like to read about this subject in more detail.

HOWEVER, even assuming that the front turret armor on T-34 m1941 is somewhat undermodeled, there are a number of things in CMBB that exacerbate the vulnerability of the T-34 m1941 to front turret penetrations compared to historical reality. IMHO, the biggest single factor is that the 50mm/L60 gun just wasn't that common in 1941. In fact, it was practically nonexistent. Historically, the majority of Panzer battalions were eqipped with PzIIs (20mm gun), Pz38(t)s (37mm gun), early versions of the Pz III (50mm/L42 or 37mm gun), and early PzIVs (75mm/L24) well into 1942. Many CMBB players will choose PzIIIs with the 50mm/L60s as soon as possible because they know it's one of the few tank platforms available at that time which can take out a T-34 or KV-1 with any reliability. Historically, PzIIIJ(Lang) (equipped with the 50mm L/60) tanks didn't even hit the Eastern front until the Winter of 1941-42, and you don't see significant numbers of them deployed until the spring offensives of 1942. By this time, the Russians are also upgrading to the T-34 M1942, with significantly thicker front turret armor.

As regards to your question about Tigers, I think there are similar issues at work here. The important thing to keep in mind about the Tiger is that it first sees action in the Fall of 1942, and continues service throughout the war. In 1942 and the first parts of 1943, the Tiger is nearly invulnerable. You have two real options for taking out a Tiger during this time period. The first is a near point-blank penetration from the 76.2mm/L42 or a Tungsten-armed 45mm/L46 on the lower side hull. The requires considerable luck and maneuvering to accomplish. The Russian 57mm gun (either as an ATG or on the T-34/57mm) is your second option. It has a somewhat better chance of KOing a Tiger, but the Russian 57mm just wasn't a very common weapon IRL. Much like they pick PzIIIJ(Lang)s to counter T-34s in the early months of the war, CM players will, of course, choose 57mm gun platforms specfically to counter the Tiger in 1942 and 1943.

Once you get to mid-late 1943, weapons platforms such as the KV-85 and SU-152 begin to show up which can penetrate the Tiger flank armor at longer ranges, and even have a chance at penetrating the frontal armor at closer ranges. By the time you get to early 1944, weapon platforms sporting the 85mm (or even more powerful guns) become even more common on the Russian side, and the Tiger's 'invulnerability' period is largely over. If you want to experience the Tiger as a near-invulnerable uberweapon, you really need to play with it in late 1942 - mid 1943.

Nevertheless, what is remarkable about the Tiger is that with it's thick (though far from invulnerable in 1944 and 1945) armor, excellent optics and powerful 88mm gun, it remains a dangerous opponent right through the end of the war with no modifications to it's main weapon or armor protection. There is no other Tank that can claim this kind of longevity in WWII. The T-34 and the American Sherman go through extensive modifications in weaponry and armor between 1942 and 1945, and more powerful platforms like the Pershing, the IS series, etc. weren't even in production in 1942.

Of course, there were distinct disadvantages to the Tiger as well. Cost to manufacture and resource consumption (i.e., fuel, etc.) are two. These are largely outside of the scope for CM, though.

Cheers,

YD

[ January 30, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Snake Eyes]

Tiger I crews were very well trained and highly motivated, especially early on. The crews went through rigorous training and testing. If they did not meet expectations they were washed out.

[Alarmer]

Excelent replyes and most informative Thanks

Now after reading your posts Iam coming to conclusion that CMBB rarity has little bit fishy smell in it :/ ??

[RSColonel_131st]

I'd add one option to Yankee Dogs two for taking out a Tiger in late 42, early 43. Use captured 75mm StuG's or similar Guns. The Tiger will get a penetrating shot at the first hit against the StuG, but the StuG has the same chance.

As for T-34's...dont think they are invulnerable. Currently playing a PBEM with Panzer IIIL (50mm Lang) against T-34, and both have quite similar characteristics. The T-34 can penetrate around 70mm at thousand meters, has itself 70mm curved armor.

The PIIIL can do 70mm at the same range, and has 50mm +20mm curved (I assume that refers to the enlarged cannon protection "Saukopfblende")

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Alarmer:

Now after reading your posts Iam coming to conclusion that CMBB rarity has little bit fishy smell in it :/ ??

Well, I'm not sure I'd necessarily call it 'fishy'. It is, however, like most of the Quick Battle system, pretty artificial.

There are others who know a lot more about when and in what numbers new weapons systems were deployed on the eastern front than I, but I haven't found any obvious errors in CM's availability and 'rarity' figures yet. For example, the PzIIIJ(Lang) with the 50mm/L60 gun isn't available for axis purchase until December of 1941, and then at a fairly high rarity 'cost' of +65%. Roughly speaking, in December of 1941, you can buy almost two PzIIIJ(Kurz) with the 50mm/L42 for the price of one PzIIIJ(Lang).

By way of comparison, in December, 1941 the T-34 m1941 is at 0% rarity, and therefore the Soviet player can afford about 3 T-34s for every 2 PzIIIJ(Lang) that the German player can buy. I would argue that with their radios, better optics and 3-man turrets, 2 PzIIIJ(Lang)s usually have the edge on 3 T-34 m1941s in a straight-out tank on tank battle, but not by a huge amount, and the t-34s have other advantages, such as *much* better mobility, and better HE firepower for use against enemy infantry and guns.

For the CM player, though, this price premium may be worth it if he's expecting to face mostly T-34 m1941s. The thing is, in the Real World, lower level commanders usually don't get to choose between taking two PzIIIJ(Kurz) or taking one PzIIIJ(Lang) - they just have to work with what they have at hand.

In short, the rarity system encourages you to make more 'realistic' force choices, but it doesn't force you to, and if you really want to play 'historically accurate' OOBs, you're going to be better off playing scenarios where the designer has gone to great effort to ensure historical accuracy.

Cheers,

YD

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

The PIIIL can do 70mm at the same range, and has 50mm +20mm curved (I assume that refers to the enlarged cannon protection "Saukopfblende")

This relates to the spaced armour on the mantlet. The saukopfblende (sic?), or pigshead, was a feature of the later stug's. It was the rounded mantlet, contrasted with the squared-off mantlet of the earlier stugs.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Alarmer:

Excelent replyes and most informative Thanks

Now after reading your posts Iam coming to conclusion that CMBB rarity has little bit fishy smell in it :/ ??

I don't think this is true. The major problem is that quick battles are usually very ahistorical. The flexibility inherent in the quick battle system often leads to force mixes that distort the historical role, and subsequent effectiveness, of many units. While the rarity modifications are by necessity tweaked by a number of factors that are open to subjectivity, I have found they seem to be firmly grounded and certainly do not imbalance the game. I find they do just the opposite, which is why rarity is considered in the first place.

[Alarmer]

I agree Rarity is a good thing..

What I wanted to say is that I now realise that when you play quick battles and both partyes buy "best" troops there are ,result is allways non historical battle..

right ?

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Alarmer:

I agree Rarity is a good thing..

What I wanted to say is that I now realise that when you play quick battles and both partyes buy "best" troops there are ,result is allways non historical battle..

right ?

Yes, for the most part quick battles are going to be ahistorical, especially when the forces are cherry-picked. However, one could argue that many highly-historical battles wouldn't be much fun. After all, most firefights were rather one sided, hardly a sporting match-up. On the other hand, a good evenly balanced battle may not be historical, but it can be a helluva lot of fun to play.

IMO, the ability to flexibly create fun, evenly balanced battles is worth the price in historical fidelity. If there are particular elements of the purchase options that bother you, establish groundrules beforehand. Plus, the engine allows scenario designers to pursue a great deal of historical detail and accuracy anyway, so scenarios are a great alternative to quick battles.

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by Alarmer:

... but still i would like some realistic standards to Quick Battles.

Too bad nobody has doned any kinda general list and tips about creating a good realistic Quick battles. Or I just havent found it yet.

Alarmer,

check this out Nippy´s guide to more realistic quickbattles

Cheers

Nolloff