what am i doing wrong?

[para]

It doesn't matter which side i play, i always lose my afv's very easily.I'm playing a map atm the moment and i had 3 stugs against shermans. so far i have seen shells break and bounce off the sherms and for the loss of two of my stugs i have managed to only kill one sherm.what am i doing wrong? is there some golden rules i should follow for tank fights?

any advice would be appreciated guys

[Sergei]

Please describe the tactic that you used, otherwise it's hard to tell what you do wrong.

The general rule of the thumb is being careful with your armour. "My first shot will always miss, his will always hit" is a useful hypothesis to follow; try to arrange it so that you can get off two shots before he gets even his first shot off, and you're already a long way off.

[z-warfare]

I'm no expert, but always try to have a single tank of theirs roll into the sights of several of your motionless, unbuttoned, arc-covering tanks.

[para]

On this occasion i was cresting a hill and had 3v2 advantage and still had to withdraw. He killed 2 of mine for one of his.The thing is i had hit him with probably twice as many shots.

I always come off 2nd best in tank duels no matter what

[realest]

Para, i'm having a heck of a time learning to keep em alive too. I've found real good advanced scouting by infantry followed (not to closely by tanks) is my best measure for keeping them alive. Grunts seem to be able to take the punishment from fire, then follow through with armor. Often vs the AI, the enemy armor will contine after the infantry even as my armor comes up if i play the Germans. I suppose it sees the panzerfaust as a greater threat. If i play russia, well everything dies except my infantry usually.

Cresting a hill is a sure fire death sentence for me. I try to hull down and not come all the way over. However, even then i tend to lose turrets and guns.

Granted, this is all vs AI. Against a human opponent i don't know.

[MikeyD]

"2nd best no matter what" sounds familiar.

If you're the one moving that's a major disadvantage right there. Have you tried moving your infantry ahead of you as a screen? At best they'll spot the enemy and supress AT guns. At worst the enemy will be too busy killing your troop to notice you rounding the hill.

If you've got smoke rounds (Germans and Lend-Lease Shermans should) you could blind one of the two tanks facing you, temporary giving you a 3-1 advantage in the fight. What I hate most about T34s is the lack of smoke rounds.

[Corvidae]

Para,

AFVs are crap,

Tanks arent much better,

Invest in designated tank killers.

AT guns supported by AT rifles and LMGs are my preference,

If I need mobility I'll invest in a SP AT gun or 3, But I dont expect them to last long,

What about your use of ground?

Are you taking advantage of shallow depressions and/or the backs of hills?

The hull down command is a usefull tool,

So is the ground view ability, and LOS tool.

Ah, you were cresting, might have been too far forward, it happens. still a good tactic

In all fairness, the sherman is hard to kill. They realy were a well designed tank, with very good armor, and a reasonably effective gun.

In game of course the gun is made a tad more powerfull than it ought to be. But this can be dealt with by good tactics and use of ground.

Your Stugs are ambush weapons. they are not meant for slugging matches against tanks.

What kind of ground are you fighting on?

Are you defending? or attacking?

[Cuirassier]

Some good advice posted here already. I'll try and add what I can.

1. Always use infantry scouts before putting your armor in view of his. Infantry will give you real time info on his types of vehicles, their number, and most importantly, their current facing.

2.Always seek many on fews. You said you had three Stug's engaging his two Shermans. Those numerical odds aren't great enough. When engaging armor with armor, especially if yours is inferior, seek 2 or 3 to 1 odds at least.

3.Also, when using turretless SP guns or TD's like the Stug, try not to be in view of too many targets at once. They have difficulty in engaging separated targets because of their horrendously slow rotation speeds. When using turretless armor that is basically an 'eggshell with a hammer', look carefully at the terrain, and use your infantry scouts to determine where the enemy is, and what way he is facing. From this, you can select keyholed firing positions and attack when the enemy is caught looking the wrong way. So when you have the disadvantage in armor quality and or quantity, you sort of have to play a 'cat and mouse' game.

4.Also try to become familiar with all the armored vehicles in the game. Know which vehicles are invulnerable or not at a given range against a given gun. In addition to this, know whether or not you should be fighting a particular vehicle hull up or hull down. (e.g baseline T-34's should fight an 80mm front Pz. IV hullup, with the Pz.IV hulldown, to maximise hits on the week 50mm turret front)

These are just the basic tactics. Obviously, terrain, whether you are attacking or defending, and the specific units involved will impact how you should be using your armor as well.

[JasonC]

Another factor may have been in play in this specific situation. You have to know the exact capabilities of your vehicle and the opponent.

A Sherman later model types especially (W armor) readily bounces 75L48 rounds from the front hull at medium range. The 75L48 is sure to go in only out to about 600m. From there to about 900m a penetration is possible if the side angle is low, but partials are likely and side angle can give outright ricochets. Beyond 900m, the hull hits are all going to bounce. The gun just isn't strong enough, the Sherman is quite well protected.

But it remains vulnerable to turret hits. So you have to arrange to catch them hull down. Or closer in, or a flank...

[para]

some great advice there guys and much appreciated. this game frustrates me but also gives me immense saisfaction. i need to learn more about each tanks strengths and weaknesses. btw i thought stugs were quite powerful but it looks like im not using them the correct way

[JasonC]

Depends on the opponent. The StuG is in general a plain vanilla AFV with a good gun and decent front armor, otherwise mediocre.

Against the Russians in particular through 1943 in particular, it is a strong vehicle, because the main Russian gun (the 76L42) barely isn't enough against its 80mm front armor. While in return, the 75L48 is enough against the T-34 out to ranges of 1200-1500 meters. That makes for a lopsided match-up against the most common enemy types.

But the Sherman gun is a bit better - better ammo in particular - and penetrates StuGs to about 1000m. Arguably that comparison undervalues the Russian gun and overvalues the US one, but that is how it is in CM.

And the Sherman armor is better - even the turret is 20mm thicker, but being unsloped that isn't enough against the German gun. The hull isn't quite as sloped but it much thicker - the T-34 relies almost entirely on slope for protection there, which works against guns up to the 50L60 but not against the 75L48.

Net result, against a T-34 a StuG is "uber" (as long as it only shows its front aspect), but against a Sherman it is not - only even odds overall, and in specific range windows and engagement types, not favored. (800-1000 meters and hull up, in particular).

If you want a TD that is "uber" against a Sherman, the Jagdpanzer-70 is the one that fits the bill. All Jagds have sufficient armor to bounce their replies from the front, so even the plain Jagd is superior to a Sherman. The L70 long barrel version will also kill the Shermans reliably at any range and aspect.

[Sirocco]

The StuG also had a low profile, which was a good asset to have.

A good tactic to use with armour is, when moving forward, to find halt positions that give a good field of fire to the front where you're looking to bring the gun to bear, while it's flanks are protected, for example with a building or trees. And a hull down spot is preferable where possible.

[GhostRider3/3]

Many well posted information already. When I am outnumbered which is most of the time.. and using Stug's or PZ IV/70 I will always put them in ambush positions e.g.

1. on the reverse slope, using the low silohete and putting them in "hide Mode" (camoflauge)

2. Using infantry to spot the movement of their armor and shadow them if you have Panzerfaust as armor has a difficult time seeing infantry units. Supress and button up their armor with mg fire, this will also pause the enemy and allow you options.

3. waiting till the enemy either gets close about 500-600m and using suprise with infantry support with AT rifles to mostly supress or imobilize their armor... (maybe), and AT guns and different angles from your positioned armor. hopefully firing at their weak sides, rear and side facing.

3A. if they are moving directly towards your hidden armor, then I wait until they get close to my other support units.. e.g infantry and flanking AT. guns, and open up with smoke rounds, and everything I have, at the same time use option 4 if really outnumbered.

4. smoke is good, if you have a mortar, you can retreat while lying smoke and hopefuly get a better angle of attack.

[ November 08, 2006, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: GhostRider3/3 ]

[Corvidae]

I could be wrong here but I thought the Stug was more an assult gun than a SP AT gun.

[JasonC]

Designed that way when it had a short 75, not used that way once it had a long 75 and the Russians had lots of T-34s and the initiative. And their production ramped precisely because it was needed for the new role, not the old one. It was used as SPAT for most of the war. The StuH (and Grilles in PD PzGdr regiments, 6 each) were the dedicated late war assault guns.

[jBrereton]

The StuG is an assault gun, they're for levelling buildings in cities and firing at infantry and support weapon positions etc., they weren't really meant for fighting armour.

And cresting hills with ANY AFV will lead to its destruction, especially a self-propelled gun like the StuG.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

they weren't really meant for fighting armour.

Correct for early models; however, the 75L48 long barreled gun wasn't added to improve penetration of buildings and bunkers. Pz IV was also a close support tank until then.

Lack of turret puts StuG in disadvantage, yes. The strong frontal armour on late models makes them very durable, however.

Originally posted by jBrereton:

And cresting hills with ANY AFV will lead to its destruction, especially a self-propelled gun like the StuG.

I'm sure that during WW2 hills were crested by a lot of AFV's that weren't destroyed instantly...

[Inola]

IMO, sharpshooters are good idea in QB ME, especialy if they are vets and better.

Light tanks in QB ME also help (especialy T-70), if you take them cracks in Gvard division. They are cheap, fast, and have a chances of KOeing inferior number of STUGs or other turretless from sides and rears.

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Correct for early models; however, the 75L48 long barreled gun wasn't added to improve penetration of buildings and bunkers. Pz IV was also a close support tank until then.

Lack of turret puts StuG in disadvantage, yes. The strong frontal armour on late models makes them very durable, however.

Hmm yeah - question is - when is this taking place?

Could we have some time info from the OP?

I'm sure that during WW2 hills were crested by a lot of AFV's that weren't destroyed instantly...

Alright - let me rephrase that -

"Any AFV cresting a hill is far more at risk than the same AFV going over flat land"

[JasonC]

We don't have to ask, he says StuGs against Shermans, and by the time there were any Shermans to face, StuGs had been upgunned, IIIs were being phased out in their favor, and they had assumed their late war, SPAT role. Why are you trying to dispute this? What can possibly be the point?

[Corvidae]

Notwithstanding the screeching of monkeys in several "!Shermans suck!" threads,

the M4 sherman was a very good tank. It had several on board MGs, A well designed interior layout, A good cupola for the comander, and exelent armour in front.

the shorter 75mm gun was not realy meant for anti tank work, (although in a pinch it could do the job) But the later,longer 75mm and the 76mm were quite effective against tanks.

So you realy are facing a very dangerous enemy.

You want a side shot from ambush.

Also wait untill they are almost on top of you, the closer you are, the more chance of a full penetration.

Remember they have a fast turning turret, they can swing around on you and return fire very quickly.

PS early shermans are rather flamable when punched

[J Ruddy]

The biggest mistake you can make is thinking you need to 'roll over' the enemy with your tanks. That is, playing the game more like an armoured avalanche, rather than a careful game of chess.

Using scouts to move ahead of your armour is a good idea. I normally use infantry or light vehicles that I don't mind putting in harms way. Even if you are assaulting you need to be sure that you are taking tactically important ground based on your equipment, not just bearing down on the enemy.

Depending which Stug III you have, you should be able to out gun most Shermans at longer ranges. You might not want to 'lead the attack' with them as closing with the Shermans will equal out the difference in weaponry. If you have short 75 Shermans, you will want to get as close to the enemy as possible, most German guns will take you out at long range.

I don't know what else to say. Even when attacking you need to be sure you are stopping and holding key positions for the map. Play it more like chess and you may have more success.

jr

[761st Black Panther]

i find that using afv's as flanking armor in conjuction with tanks is a good manuever. especially if you have pathers as the main strike force. remeber that afvs arent very useful on the offensive and were meant to provide firepower to INFANTRY units not armor. the experince of the afv crews also plays an important role. but if your just stuck with stug's/stuh's then i suggest that you tell your adavancing infantry to target enemy armor to button them down before engaging your stug. it doesnt work all the time by it might just provided you with enough time to swing your stug in that direction and plant one in that soviet bastard. (no offense to anyone of russian heritage)

[Cuirassier]

Tanks are AFV's. Stugs are AFV's. Any armored fighting vehicle is an AFV.

[RockinHarry]

Things that help me much when employing my armor is using the "fast" command oftenly and then "hunt" when near favorable firing positions. If enemy AT guns/armor whereabouts is known and flanking these is impossible or offers the side armor dangerously, it helps to approach with a 11 or 1 o´clock bearing, which adds some more horizontal armor angle, thus increasing "effective" armor. That´s a RL tactic that works well in CM too. Same can be done with the turret by setting covered arcs appropiately. Works the same when on the defense, using a combination of "rotate" (for hull) and "covered arc" (for turret). These are single vehicle techniques and things become more complicated and varied when you are to employ whole formations (platoon and up) and overwatch fire tactics come into play. Other support arms (snipers, Arty. ect.) when available are of good use to cripple at least a small amount of enemy armor. Killing tank commanders is best, getting tanks just to button up is second best result.

Generally things as advised in Jentz or Guderians books (Panzer Marsch!) work quite well in CM IMHO. :cool:

It also depends much on the map you play! Ideal tank country would be rolling terrain, flat hills with not too much cover terrain (brush/woods ect.) and large enough a map to allow standard shooting ranges when armor forces come into contact. A 2x2km map would be the absolute minimum to allow any sort of options for an attacking player. Larger is better IMO.

If you prefer cat and mouse engagements where "normal" combat ranges is neglected (thus taking away the advantages of normally superior armor), then small maps, or lots of cover terrain/urban maps would be the choice.