STUGGED UP AGAIN

[GRUMLIN]

Hello boarders.

Just played a very tough fought QB in which a bunch of KV1s handed my panzers their heads on a plate. My issue is this - I had a STUG which had 2 rounds of HC and 9 rounds of AP left. I had withdrawn him into scattered trees to hide as the KVs ran past, then popped him out to HUNT for a flank shot. Stug rolled up the hill and caught a KV against the skyline - fired, hit lower hull, but it BOUNCED cos the dumb fecker used AP.

So, why did the Stug load AP? he had already backed out of a firefight after seeing his AP rounds bounce off front and sides of KVs like confetti, if he had HC why not use it? And dont try me with the old 'oooh, combat is confusing' marlarky - this was a vet....

Grum

[YankeeDog]

Need more details to give you an intelligent reply - For example, what was the range? What was the Date? Otherwise, I'm just taking shots in the dark. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Priest]

Going for a flank shot? Sounds like a good time to us AP and not the valuable HC. Then you pop out and meet one head on (think that is what you meant) and you fire fast with whatever is loaded which just happened to be AP.

Good?

[Andrew H.]

I don't think tanks like to use the more rare rounds on the first shot - they use the AP until they get the range, and then they switch to the scarce round. This is historically what units did with tungsten, anyway, and I doubt they would act any differently with HC vs. tungsten.

[GRUMLIN]

Sorry guys - as usual I forget the details in me first post .

It was september 1941. The STUG had a flank shot on a KV1. The range was under 120 meters (clever Ol' Grumlin). He had tried AP himself 3 minutes previously on a KV1 and seen it bounce off. My point is - if I was the commander given probably my ONE chance to kill a monster tank, I'd use the best fricking round I had.

As it happened, the KV1 rolled its turret round and nailed the STUG before it could fire again.

G

[Slappy]

It really was a shame. Grumlin likely would have pulled out a draw if he had managed to either hold onto that StuG or trade it for the KV.

My feeling on the poor armor choice is that the StuGs don't 'remember' the engagement 3 turms ago. In my experience, each 'contact' is different. Armor almost has to have a bounce for each different LOS to a target in order to switch to AP. This seems a bit extreme.

On the other hand, the TacAI probably dosen't keep track of what units engaged what others when and how that came out. The AI dosen't learn.

I just don't know how good units first pick round selection was in reality. If I did, I'd have a better idea of whether to be pissed or not.

[jgdpzr]

Slappy got it right. Quite simply, the ai didn't remember it had bounced AP three turns previously. Generally, it will only fire its more valuable rounds immediately after seeing its other rounds defeated (within the same targeting contact). I don't believe the engine is capable of a more lasting learned response.

[Rob Murray]

I've played a scenario in which my Russian tanks used AP on halftracks instead of HE. This particular tank has far more HE available than AP. It seems to me to make more sense to use HE on halftracks ( & other "soft skinned" targets ) than to waste valuable AP on them.

[SgtMuhammed]

I know it states somewhere in the manual that tanks will fire lesser rounds before they break out the silver bullets so that they are sure they have the range. During the games where I make it a point to pay attention I don't really remember a lot of special rounds being fired.

[JasonC]

Methinks your problem is that the non-AP ammo was probably canister ("C"), not HEAT ("HC"). That early, you find several C rounds for typical 75L24 StuGs. You don't get any HC that I've seen, certainly not a lot of it. It is easy to confuse the round designation, since "C" for canister is a new round type in CMBB. Can't blame your vet for thinking AP at point blank was a better bet than little steel balls, against a KV.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Methinks your problem is that the non-AP ammo was probably canister ("C"), not HEAT ("HC"). That early, you find several C rounds for typical 75L24 StuGs. You don't get any HC that I've seen, certainly not a lot of it. It is easy to confuse the round designation, since "C" for canister is a new round type in CMBB. Can't blame your vet for thinking AP at point blank was a better bet than little steel balls, against a KV.

If you take a spin on the Blitzkrieg campaign as Germans, the StuG B(?) has HE, AP, HC, C, S as its ammo loadout. Scenario Editor also shows short-barreled 75mm has this range of rounds in June 1942. HC must be rare as rocking horse **** though

[JasonC]

In June 1942, sure. In September, 1941, no.

[SgtMuhammed]

Definitly, in 41 HC was still more of a hey neat thing rather than a gotta have thing.

[JasonC]

Well, two anecdotal points about 75L24 HEAT in 1941. Guderian encountered T-34s on the road to Moscow in October, and it wasn't fun. He makes no mention of HEAT, and reports that the Pz IIIs and IVs tried to maneuver for rear turret shots (!) instead. Wittman was driving StuGs at the time, and already showing his ace potential. He also makes no mention of HEAT, and instead took out T-34s by aiming for the turret ring with AP.

Other reports say 88 Flak, 105mm HEAT from divisional howitzers, and non-penetrating "hail fire" from whole companies of Pz IIIs and IVs using AP (meaning, hit them 20-30 times and get "gun damage" and "immobilized" results to cumulatively wreck the tank, - or one shell finds a weak point, to be sure), were the ways they were dealt with in practice.

Somehow, if the solution was as simple as "just use HEAT" or "aim for the turret" or both, I think one or the other of them might perhaps have noticed it. Neither did. To me the conclusion is they didn't have HEAT, and KOing T-34s by getting a 75L24 or 50L42 AP round to "stick" on the "round" turret front or side, was not nearly as easy in the real deal as it is in CMBB.

Once they had HEAT for the short 75s, and long 50L60s firing high velocity AP, that is probably more like what happened (meaning, a good enough "stick" on the turret and the T-34 can be handled). But that is 1942, not 1941.

In CMBB, the T-34 turret is wimpy (and lower side hull too exposed likewise - in reality ~90% of the unsloped portion was covered by the running gear) making it easier for CMBB German tankers to deal with them than in the real deal.

To get T-34 level performance in 1941, Russians in CMBB need KVs instead of T-34s. Which then aren't as fast, etc.

[GRUMLIN]

OK guys, I revert to my original post - it was DEFINITELY HC - straight pen of 82 across the board. In fact, I'm off to rerun it and get a frickin screenshot.

G

[GRUMLIN]

OK, how do i get a screenshot in movie mode?

G

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Other reports say 88 Flak, 105mm HEAT from divisional howitzers, and non-penetrating "hail fire" from whole companies of Pz IIIs and IVs using AP (meaning, hit them 20-30 times and get "gun damage" and "immobilized" results to cumulatively wreck the tank, - or one shell finds a weak point, to be sure), were the ways they were dealt with in practice.

Somehow, if the solution was as simple as "just use HEAT" or "aim for the turret" or both, I think one or the other of them might perhaps have noticed it. Neither did. To me the conclusion is they didn't have HEAT, and KOing T-34s by getting a 75L24 or 50L42 AP round to "stick" on the "round" turret front or side, was not nearly as easy in the real deal as it is in CMBB.

they're there if you look:Jentz PanzerTruppen Vol I

Pz Regt 203 has knocked out 115 enemy tanks with the loss of 14 of their own Pz's

Combating the T 34 with the 5cm KwK tank gun is possible only only at short ranges from the flanks or rear. Hits on the turret ring, even with high explosive shells or MG bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armour piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penatrations and breaking open the weld seams.

It's also interesting that the Germans noted (1941 early 42) that when the Soviets (T-34s) chose the engagement range it was from 1200m to 1800m. If the Short 5cm and 7,5cm guns were so ineffective why bother sitting well over a kilometre away?

[JasonC]

It is not surprising that units scored 7:1 kill ratios, when the army as a whole was winning so big. Over 80% of the Russian tanks were lights, and most engagements against the heavies were quite lopsided in unit size terms. You don't need penetrations when the odds are high enough.

Here is a useful test scenario to show this. Put 1 green KV-1 on 800x800 meters of open steppe. Give the Germans 3 platoons of Pz IIIs and 1 platoon of Pz IVs, mixed regs and vets, not uparmored models (IIIFs and IVDs e.g.). Initial ranges will run from just under 500 to 800 odd meters. Target the KV with every tank and hit go.

The KV will be lucky to get a single shot off. It won't last 2 minutes, and it will be suppressed almost the entire time. Immobilization and gun hits will wreck the tank, without a single round penetrating. You will see the shells bouncing off like hail. But 100 hail impacts in 75 seconds, and the crew -will- bail from the resulting wreck.

In my first run, the KV targeted one Pz IV about 600 meters away, rotating the turret about 20 degrees to target it. It got off one burst from the coaxial to button one German tank, buttoning itself in seconds as the first rounds hit. Before it fired a single time, it had been hammered by half a dozen ricochets.

It never did fire its main gun. It was immobilized within 30 seconds, took the first gun hit around 45 seconds, and was abandoned 15 seconds into the second minute counting the "death clock". The surviving crew were machinegunned by the 90 second mark.

If anything, CMBB is forgiving about cumulative damage from multiple hits. Which in real life would not only inflict immobilization and gun damage, but also create weak points, progressively crack seams, etc, allowed eventual penetration. Spalling would become serious faster than it does, when under that kind of repeated punishment.

And the crew inside would be even more rapidly suppressed, and likely to reverse out of there or bail even before immobilization and gun hits wreck the vehicle, than it is in CMBB. One other thing that could be better in CMBB is crew behavior against tanks they can't penetrate. Right now the default is back up and avoid, don't waste shots, pop smoke. That is not what the Germans actually did. They fired as fast as possible, whole formations, to ring the enemy tank like a bell.

Hail fire was real. It was used by the Germans as a matter of course against the heavies. When you have an echelon larger unit - let alone two echelons larger - as well as more accurate gunnery and faster rates of fire (three man turrets, etc) - it is perfectly feasible to engage and defeat tanks you can't actually penetrate. A company of tanks can put 100 rounds into each target, and often 20-30 would suffice, which a platoon can manage.

Of course, a T-34 was not nearly as invunerable as the 1941 model KV I used in my test. The turret ring was a weak point. Some models had a weak point in the driver's hatch. The round turret might occasionally be "stuck" (meaning, 30 degree impact angle, thus penetrable at 500-800 yards or so), but not anything like as routinely as it happens in CMBB now. But those are gravy to the basic cause.

Why did the Russians stand off? To fully exploit their range envelope (firing from halt while the Germans close), and maximize their chances of surviving the engagement to do it again. As long as their own shell would penetrate - and they were mostly dealing with IIIFs, IVDs, or lighter models (Czech etc), so they could do that from quite far away - there was no reason to close. Snipe and stay alive.

If you got too close, the rounds would start hitting repeatedly. The crew would get stunned. The hits would continue, Germans would get closer and repeat the process, while reply fire would get harder and harder to deliver. The tank could be wrecked by hail fire. Even immobilization would be deadly. Better to avoid that risk by staying far enough away to keep the hit rate low. Tiger Is stood off at 2 km and upward for the same sort of reasons.

[Bastables]

You seem to miss the salient point that hits on the front turret would penetrate, as reported by Panzer regts. The report makes no mention of its ineffectiveness due to shells skidding off the curved turret.

The "Hail of bullets" was advocated when encountering a numerically superior T-34 force at "range" aka the Russian tactic of plus 1000m stands off range, where front turret and hull side/rear penetrations were impossible and the fact of the Panzers being out numbered precluded manoeuvring to killing range. It was meant to force Russian withdrawals because “the Russians are impressed by the rate and accuracy of fire”, not through actual T-34 kills.

The British although advancing still managed to lose more tanks than the Germans in Normandy, advancing/"winning" is not the single causitive variable for kill ratios.

[ January 08, 2003, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Battlefront.com]

Some thoughts...

The AI is incapable of remembering what it did the last time it targeted a vehicle. This means that if the LOS line is broken for more than a couple of seconds, it is back to square one. This isn't generally a problem, but it does cause some realistically poor results sometimes. Do a search on "memory" and you will probably dig up some very detailed threads on the reasons why the AI has no memory (hint... you like actually playing the game, right? )

The other thing to remember is that the TacAI is not designed to be perfect. My best guess is that this was a borderline case where there was a chance that AP would work. Since there was more AP in the rack, and generally AP is a better round to use, that is what was used. And that is not unrealistic since real TCs or loaders screwed up things sometimes.

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

real TCs or loaders screwed up things sometimes.

The truest statement on any of these boards .

[JasonC]

It says "only possible at short ranges from the sides and rear", doesn't it? That is not quite the same as "routinely KOed by turret hits out to 800 meters", is it? The gun mantle statement refers to busting the weld seams - that means penetrations due to armor weakening from repeated hits, not first round kills because the armor is supposedly flat or 30 degrees. In CMBB, turret penetrations are routine affairs out to 500-800 meters with 50L42 or 75L24 AP.

Wittman did not aim for the turret ring because he was an idiot and did not know he could kill with any turret hit. Guderian did not report his men maneuvered for rear turret shots because he was an idiot. The official doctrinal report on dealing with T-34s says to use hail fire, with Pz IVs forming a base of fire and Pz IIIs going for the flanks, and mentions weak points. It does not say "can engage frontally from 500-800 yards, just aim for the turret". There are numerous reports that 88mm and 105mm HEAT are the only "effective" weapons.

All of which makes perfect sense if the "round" turret mostly produced 45-60 degree angles to the armor, and 30 degree impacts rarely if at all. The turret is still the place where the penetration gets closest (other than lower side hull of course, but it was to a large extent covered by the running gear). And thus spalling etc would occur first, particularly with close range shots (which some reports suggest means as close as 200 meters sometimes).

As for why Brit loses in Normandy were higher, of course they weren't facing 1941 Russians. The portion of heavies they faced was twice as high. The Germans weren't in 2 man turrets, without radios, with green crews, with poor armor doctrine, sans combined arms, engaging piecemeal.

95% of the Russian tank fleet needed some sort of repair on the day of the invasion (of course less than 20% were heavies, too). Many of the heavies were undoubtedly lost to breakdowns or in the huge encirclements without direct tactical combat. Some were dealt with by 88s or 105s using the gun front technique. Some were KOed by the weak point hits or by aces who could hit something as small as the turret ring. Many more were undoubtedly wrecked by hail fire, or abandoned by their crews under it, or driven off with damage and later abandoned.

Intervention of T-34s in strength still held up von Kleist for several days early in the campaign. He did not just run over them. The Russian counterattack had to peter out first, on gun fronts and from lack of combined arms, and to flanking attacks adjacent to the area where the Russian armor concentrated. Guderian was stopped for several weeks in October after intervention by T-34s on the road to Tula. He only got moving again by shifting the axis of the advance, and after several repulses.

Perfection would have the "round" turret give 60 degree slope some of the time, at least 45 degree slope most of the time, and only rarely 30 degree slope. A little of the 30 degree stuff would reflect things like the turret ring. If the armor quality rating could drop slightly on each hit, it might allow the cumulative wrecking effect of busted welds etc. Harder to program I know, but individually tracked quality numbers by plate on each tank would be ideal.

Spalling might begin a bit sooner than it does now, in terms of % of required penetration before it becomes possible. There is decent "stun" behavior for non-penetrations as it is (witness my KV-1, not getting a single shot off due to stun delay after an impact), but it could interact a bit more with crew morale and sometimes generate full "shocked" results or bail-outs.

We take what we have. But if anyone thinks it was as easy to KO T-34s in the real deal as in CMBB now, they are selling the German tankers of 1941 short. They aren't trivial to beat even in CMBB, of course.

[MikeyD]

Tiger I tanks in Tunisia reported on dificulties dealing with 'hail fire' from the British, but in that case they were talking about multiple HE hits which didn't come near penetrating but wrecked optics, hatches, wheels, etc. German tankers seemed to be chronically short on ammo and at least in the Med. theater long range 'hail fire' was frowned upon. They were instructed to close with the enemy and get off accurate shots in an effort to save ammo. It's hard to imagine Tiger tank crews were actually jealous of their Sherman opponents for their willingness to rain fire down on them from a distance!

[Ex Bellator]

FWIW I fully agree with Jasons comments. I have always thought (from a common sense not a Grog perspective) that the 'Curved' modifier is of marginal effectiveness and needs tweaking upwards.

As an aside in case anyone thinks I'm trying to get unbeatable Russian forces in 1941, I also think that T-34s and KVs are way too cheap at that time and should have a substantial points increase.

Just wanted to offer some support to Jason before the BFC and 'fanboys' rough him up too much

[Battlefront.com]

MikeyD,

Adding to your ammo comments... also remember that the loadouts had a lot to do with the willingness to fire. If one has 20 rounds available max vs. 50... which tank do you think is going to be more willing to hail fire? The Tigers, ISs, etc. all tended to have smaller possible loadouts compared with earlier vehicles which sported smaller caliber guns.

Steve