To The Volga! A massive AAR (in progress)

[Dillweed]

Here's the deal. I was starting to get suspicious about how easy the going was. I was about 80% sure that I had selected "allow computer to place units" but wasn't sure. So I decided to try one turn of a new game to see how hard the fighting was in comparison. The results are best expressed in business-ese "Without admitting to any specific wrongdoings, I have chose to restart the scenario." Boy-oh-boy is it different. I'm wrinting up the text now.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I thought so Dillweed, hope youy keep it up. BTW I've started to give this a full go myself. I've given the CPU opponent an extra 100% increase in strenth (ie doubled) just for good measure.

I'm still placing my units, got 2 Inf Btlns and all the vehicles to go, but I must admit that it's been a lot of work. I hope to finish deploying and play the first turn on this weekend.

I hope to figure out how to post screen shots and with them provide a little commentry, firstly my plan.

[von Churov]

And I wondered will anyone ever try to bite To the Volga operation.Now, I've seen everything.

DillWeed...you are a brave man. (And you have a LOT of free time in your life).

And you ARE insane, indeed!

But congratulations for that...Those kind of people make the world go on.

Keep up the good work.

And don't fear!

[Dillweed]

Yeah, half my company got evaced out of texas, so mucho overtime for us in the colorado half. Have lots of good pics, but no time to write them up.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

BTW get used to fearing for your PzIV Specials, because for all subsequent models of PzIVs they never have more than 50mm of turrett front armour, ever! This is true, I've checked, I don't know the reason even when they put more on late war PzIII turrett fronts. At this point I blame Guderian until I know for sure.

[qb]Positive, there would have been much more infantry the areas getting hammered by my guns if I hadn't

The PzIV chassis was designed in the 30s, and originally took the 75mm/L24 gun. When they upgraded to the L42 (and eventually L48), the basic chassis just couldn't handle the weight and size of the gun, and also take additional armor on the turret.

So the Germans couldn't have both a bigger gun, and thicker turret armor; they had to choose one or the other.

I'm no engineer, so I can't explain exactly what the limiting factor was; IIRC it had something to do with the small turret ring -- maybe too

much weight on the small ring er sumfink?

IMHO, this was probably the right choice; I'd rather have a PzIV with weak turret front armor and and L48, than one with a beefy turret and an L24. In any event, I don't think Guderian had anything to do with this decision; the "special PzIVs started coming out before he was promoted up to a position where he and direct influence over Tank design and manufacture.

Cheers,

YD

[Shmavis]

Wow. Are you a quadraplegic? That's the only way I can see you having enough time for this AAR. If you aren't killed in the process, I'll send you a case of beer upon its completion.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

The PzIV chassis was designed in the 30s, and originally took the 75mm/L24 gun. When they upgraded to the L43 (and eventually L48), the basic chassis just couldn't handle the weight and size of the gun, and also take additional armor on the turret.

So the Germans couldn't have both a bigger gun, and thicker turret armor; they had to choose one or the other.

I can't explain exactly what the limiting factor was; IIRC it had something to do with the small turret ring -- maybe too much weight on the small ring or sumfink?

IMHO, this was probably the right choice; I'd rather have a PzIV with weak turret front armor and and L48, than one with a beefy turret and an L24. In any event, I don't think Guderian had anything to do with this decision; the "special PzIVs started coming out before he was promoted up to a position where he had direct influence over Tank design and manufacture.

As I said at this point I'm still holding Guderian responsible until I know absolutely for sure, but thanks for your input YankeeDog this sounds like a reasonable explanation though I must say.

However, from late February 1943 Guderian had been given direct control of Panzer design and as much as possible (helped by Albert Speer) over production though he still had to contend with Hitler's interferrance at times. Thus he could have given his override to PzIVHs and later definately over the turrett front on PzIVJs.

In his memoirs he mentions that Hitler demanded that the front armour on 12 PzIVs (as in for the first of the H series) be increased to 80mms in April 1942 for the invasion of Malta. Perhaps the same bloke who reduced the L60 50mm gun to the L42 gun being installed on the Panzer IIIs had a hand in only applying the 80mm criteria to the hull front and not also the turrett front on the PzIVHs and latter to PzIVJs here. Lets blame him now who ever he was I suppose.

[ng cavscout]

Was this project given up?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm guessing yes or alternatively, they went mad from the sheer frustration of the exercise.

Regards

Jim R.

[John Kettler]

Dillweed,

"Ambition should be made of sterner stuff." Call me hugely impressed by your titanic gaming undertaking, let alone providing all the commentary and tasty screenshots. This should prove hugely inspiring and informative to people thinking about either getting the game or who have it already but haven't really gotten into it.

Since you've restarted the game, I highly recommend you disperse and dig in your artillery assets better than last time. You can't afford to give up fire support when you're advancing in the open, especially when it's instantly responsive on board stuff.

The suggestion regarding leading with Pz III/Js is excellent, IMO. The III/J is the toughtest tank in your inventory, and the spaced armor is very effective in breaking up Russian AP projectiles. Do NOT place your Pz IV Specials hulldown, for this greatly increases the likelihood of being hit smack in the thin turret face armor. If you fight

your Specials while not hulldown, the odds are most hits will find your thicker hull armor. Keyholed firing positions and shoot and scoot can help keep those vital Specials alive. If the opportunity affords, though, your Pz III/Js will be great hulldown.

Good luck!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Zalgiris 1410]

O'h thanks for reminding me, I haven't forgotten to keep up with it, I've just had a lot of CPU problems. A whole lot of them. I'll see if I can get this one going again soon!

I learnt a hell of a lot playtesting many tactics and techniques for this senario. I've played up to turn 6 or 8 at lest, may be 10 in the first battle and have been going excedingly well actually. No tank or gun losses yet while having knockout about ten Russian tanks and a fair number of guns. IIRC I'm just shooting my way into the buildings on the left with the Panzergrenadier Regiment and the left wing Kompanies of the Infantry Regiment in the middle of the map. All my HTs and Armoured cars and most of my guns are up out and firing...gee I'm getting excited just thinking about it...

[Lucas -FIN-]

I will DEFINATELY do an AAR out of this map!

[ January 18, 2008, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Lucas -FIN- ]

[Sergei]

Still waiting...

[coe]

quick thing on PzIV specials...

in real life, did the IV specials really avoid hull down due to the turret thing or is it just a CMBB probability thing.

e.g. in real life - did the allies say, "oooh PzIV... target specifically the turret!!" when PzIV fully exposed? (we're assuming front aspect)

[Sergei]

FWIW I never avoid hull down with any tanks. The point is about minimizing the silhouette so as to not get hit. Kill the enemy before it hits you.

[Mies]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Still waiting...

350 days to the day. Why not wait two more weeks and make this a "To the memory of to the Volga" thread, to be dug up after a year , each year.

Mies

[PLM2]

I was thinking about trying this. I loaded the scenerio and I was amazed at the scale. I knew it would be tough as hell because of the open ground and having so much in view of the enemy at the start.

I was lucky and the weather was rain and fog so visibility was low, i figured i could leave most of the support things behind and move in with infantry to occupy the first factory buildings. But then I gave up halfway trying to place my troops. Just too big. Maybe i will give it another shot. I just dont like waiting for a long time for turns to be calculated. I guess I can write AAR material while waiting for gameplay to be calculated

Quick question, in some operations, in new battles your setup zone seems to be a flat across the map area. While in others it seems it more goes where your troops go instead of in a straight line.

For example if I moved up one flank of the map, would i have to capture the terrain along the rest of the map to be able to setup there?

Also I seem to remember being unable to move surrounded units and they got supplied less? I dont know where my manual is, appreciate the help

I'm tempted to play the early 41 Operation where Germans are assaulting Soviet positions at the start of the war. I played it before, but I think it would be a good warm up

Edit: Found features of Operations in the features list. If anyones interesteD:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmbb/new%20features.html#battles_ops

[ July 16, 2007, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: PLM2 ]

[highliner]

I played this both ways and slaughtered the AI well before the 10 battles were up so definetly

up the computer bonus or experience or both , or better still find some other nutter to play it against . Pulling depleted units out of forward positions and resting them for a one or two battles is a good way to keep the cannon fodder coming .

[stoat]

Originally posted by PLM2:

Quick question, in some operations, in new battles your setup zone seems to be a flat across the map area. While in others it seems it more goes where your troops go instead of in a straight line.

For example if I moved up one flank of the map, would i have to capture the terrain along the rest of the map to be able to setup there?

In my experience the game likes to work with straight lines. However, if one flank is advanced a fair amount more than the rest of your front, that flank will be included in the next setup phase, but not the whole line. I guess I'm trying to say that the game prefers a straight front, but you will see bulges and salients if you move forward in one area with appreciable strength.

Also I seem to remember being unable to move surrounded units and they got supplied less? I dont know where my manual is, appreciate the help

They won't get resupply or replacements, but I believe that you can return them to friendly lines.

[highliner]

Originaly posted by PLM2

, I dont know where my manual is,

do a search for pdf , manual should be there .

[JoMac]

Originally posted by coe:

quick thing on PzIV specials...

in real life, did the IV specials really avoid hull down due to the turret thing or is it just a CMBB probability thing.

e.g. in real life - did the allies say, "oooh PzIV... target specifically the turret!!" when PzIV fully exposed? (we're assuming front aspect)

I am sure the Germans attempted Hull Down whenever possible. The PZIV had 50mm front turret armor but had 80mm mantlet armor thats about a 50/50 percent exposure, unfortunatly the game engine does not take this into account.

No, the Allies did not specifically target the turret. However, most armies did target the center of the tank to achive a better hit overall.

[Lucas -FIN-]

bring-up-post

for reference..

[JasonC]

Yankee Dog

a few corrections, then some comments on the real vs. the game way these things work.

First, there never was a L42 Panzer IV. There was a 50L42 Pz III, and then 50L60 and 75L24 Panzer IIIs. There was a 75L24 Panzer IV, then a short period of 75L43 - which is probably what you meant to refer to - then 75L48 for the duration.

Second, the Panzer IV front was mostly 80mm, and the area with only 50mm was small. And the same was true of the StuG - it too had a 50mm section right around the gun. The game doesn't get this fine with specific plates, though. Which makes the StuG less vulnerable, and the turreted Panzer IV more vulnerable, than they were in reality.

In the real deal, the Germans treated uparmored versions of the Panzer IV and the StuG as basically equally well protected. They also said themselves that the protected afforded by 80mm fronts on these vehicles, against the standard Russian 76mm (towed and on the T-34 etc), was "proof beyond 500 meters, vulnerable within 500 meters" - not effectively invulnerable down to point blank, as the game depicts.

Both vehicles had a significant range and kill chance advantage against a T-34-76 once uparmored and upgunned. Neither was invulnerable, nor significantly superior to the other in pure gun-armor terms. Pz IVs were thought stronger on the attack due to the turret, StuGs adequate for defensive roles where it was easier to choose positions to show only front facing.

In the real deal, the uparmored Pz IIIs were outranged by T-34s. Their 50L60 gun was marginal without a side shot or rare APCR, and needed quite close range - still without any hope vs. the front glacis. Meanwhile the Russian 76s were stronger than the game depicts, as noted in the 500 yard effectiveness vs. 80mm fronts explained earlier.

At longer range - 1000 meters and up - the 70mm front IIIs were adequate protected. But they were outranged by the T-34s, just as the T-34s were outranged by the long 80mm front Pz IVs. As the German fleet transitioned from one to the other, the closing preferences of the two sides reversed. That is, in 1942 the Russians tried to stand off and the Germans to close; in 1943 the reverse was true.

In the game, the Pz IIIs will bounce Russian 76mm beyond 500 meters, and will start getting turret penetrations themselves at the same range.

The IV longs will penetrate the T-34s to long range, but can be penetrated through the turret, with the hits being more common than in reality. The Pz IVs are far *less* vulnerable than in reality, within 500 meters, but marginally *more* vulnerable than in reality, beyond that. Thick StuGs on the other hand are very heavily favored by the game's gun and armor modeling decisions.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

Tons of them.

30+50 defends better than 80, when every other engineering analysis or game considers it worse (more like 70mm).

Russian AP ammo quality is modeled as so poor that in 1943, even Russian 85mm fails against 30+50 plate down to 500 meters range (occasional partials only - at 750m, not even those). This effects 85mm AA and SU-85s, both explicit counters to Tigers. Not even those who advised BTS on the armor modeling think an 85mm should fail against a StuG.

There is no progressive armor damage, but applique armor suffers more from it than any other type. Real battle narratives frequently speak of the add on plate being shattered by the first hit or two and the underlying armor being inadequate after that. Advantage 30+50 early G StuG.

Non-turreted SPs don't have a separate armor plate rating for the gun area, which is where the StuG was as thin as the Pz IV - and turreted ones don't have a separate rating for mantlet (where the IV was thicker) compared to the rest of the turret front.

The gun hit chance might have been used to separate these, but instead is used only for hits directly on the gun proper, not ones right at the base of its mount.

The penetration numbers believed for Russian 76mm were heavily influenced by one test specifically against Tigers, with higher armor quality and 82mm rather than 80mm plate - and using a Russian definition of "penetration" that required 75%, not 50% of the shell, to be through the armor.

BR-350P ammo was actually available from late 1942 on, and in significant quantities - but in the game only appears in 1944 and then in neglible amounts. Both sides and other sources state that by the time of Kursk, improved ammo (including withspread use of 350B rather than A, and the presence of subcaliber P) had made 80mm plate vulnerable to Russian 76mm. They speak of needing to close and 400 to 500m effective ranges, but not failure down to point blank.

The Germans regarded the StuG, StuH, and Pz IV hull front as proof against Russian 76mm only beyond 500 meters, and said it provided not protected against them inside of 500m - but in the game, a 30+50 will bounce anything they can fire before 1944, and most of what they have afterward, down to point blank range.

Russian training literature sold by BTS gives opening ranges vs. types with 80mm fronts of 400 to 600 meters, depending on the type of 76mm involved. In the game, none of them work even much closer than that.

The vehicle cost algorithm is basically continuous in total armor protection, and weights having a turret and depth of ammo load very heavily - as a result, a StuG is vastly less expensive than a Panzer IV despite being an uber-weapon vs. nearly all available Russian vehicles and guns in 1942 and 1943, while the latter is a vanilla capability those years.

The rariety system is geared to how common a weapon was within its type and side, not to rank within the whole armor distribution of the side nor to overall numbers present in the field by a given date.

Thus a long thick StuG that was the top 2-3% of the German vehicle fleet in late 1942 or early 1943, will get a 0 or +10 rariety number. Meanwhile, Russian 57mm guns, which overall were 3 times as numerous as Tiger Is e.g., will get very high rariety numbers because they are compared to still more numerous 45mm and 76mm ATGs. The basis of comparison is different in the two cases - one, all ATGs; the other, only turretless SP out at that date, not all AFVs.

In late 1942, only about a quarter of the German AFV fleet was as good as a Panzer III long or Marder, let along a thick front StuG with long 75. Another half were the 1941 era mix of Pz IIIs with short 50s or IVs and StuGs with short 75s, and the light quarter were still Pz 38s and Panzer IIs. But nobody takes such AFVs as the Germans in scenarios set in the second half of 1942. Everything is from the top quarter, and in QBs frequently from the top few percent of the type distribution. But rariety premiums are not paid for this, because the prevalence of a StuG with thick front and long gun is only being measured against the number of surviving StuGs with thin fronts and short guns, not against the whole AFV fleet.

German propaganda and training literature of the time said things like "the life of an assault artilleryman is short but full of interest", and extolled things like better optics, low sillouette, superior range for effective penetration - and emphasized getting the first shot from well camoued ambush.

Not a word about being invulnerable if only the front aspect was shown. Meanwhile field pics show lots of add on expedients like extra track sections, sandbags, and sometimes even cast concrete additions to StuG frontal armor - hardly a sign it was regarded as "natively" impenetrable. Long StuGs and midwar and later Panzer IVs were regarded as vehicles in the same class, the former fit for defense and the latter for defense or attack, due to the turret - this equivalence in contemporary German assessments cannot be squared with the depicted performance of the two types in CMBB.

It all added up to "uberStugs", which no one had ever heard of before CMBB appeared. (Much of this was probably a byproduct of decisions effectively designed to make Tiger Is nearly invulnerable in their 1943 heyday. A side effect of Tiger sides being nearly invulnerable was just to make StuG fronts equally invulnerable - without any historical reality cross-check correcting that excess).

StuGs were indeed a common type in the German AFV mix, but only after turreted Panzer III production was halted and the full chassis output came as turretless varieties. That only happened in the course of 1943, and the fleet mix did not transition to StuGs common until 1944.

By 1944, the Russians have answers to 80mm plates even in CMBB - T-34/85s, improved modeling of Russian AP ammo quality that finally lets 85mm penetrate the things, BR-350P ammo finally available (though still uncommon), and their own heavier SP AFVs with long 122s etc.

The solution is for players and designers to take more Panzer IVs in 1943, and more Panzer III longs and Marders in 1942, and vastly fewer StuGs. Once you get to 1944 and StuGs were really available in quantity, use of them can be "unrestricted", provided the Russians aren't forced (by rariety settings or otherwise) to rely too exclusively on T-34/76s, SU/76s, or towed 76mm guns.

Etc. All wraggled over for ages already on these fora.