STUGGED UP AGAIN

[Bastables]

Originally posted by 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.

No, if any thing the short 5cm "penetrations and breaking of the weld seams" show how the free-edge affect of rounds hitting 2-4 shall diameters away will act as if only half the armour is there. Aka the front turret acts weaker than it's thickness and curvature would have you believe. The word penetration is pretty clear here.

Pz regt reports show that the T-34 was killable at short ranges and that the hail of bullets was in response to being out numbered and out ranged by T-34s. This is in direct contrast to your argument of “CMBB T-34 should be as invulnerable as CMBB KV-1s.”

Have you read Wittmanns combat experiences in Short StuGs? He achives front turret penatrations at sub=500m (close range ambushes and stalks):

"On 12 July, Wittmann's StuG III was ordered to move to a vantage point on a hill, designated Point 65.5. After reaching their objective - after nearly running into a ditch! - Rottenführer Klinck, Wittmann's gunner, spotted a number of enemy Panzers rapidly approaching. After moving into a postion offering additional visual advantage, eighteen T34/76 tanks were spotted, one group of twelve and another group of six. After ordering his driver Koldenhöff to reposition the vehicle on the left side of the hill, Wittmann prepared his crew for the onslaught, and the gun was set to take the Russian Panzers head-on. After repositioning again in order to gain a view over the hill, the first of the T34/76s was quickly taken out with one round of armour-piercing shot from the 75mm KwK. As the StuG III was not equipped with a rotating turret, all of the responsibility was placed on the driver Koldenhöff, who with consummate skill quickly rolled the vehicle into a suitable vantage point, allowing Klinck to obtain an accurate bead on a second T34/76, which was quickly engulfed in flames. Within seconds, loader Petersen had slammed the next round into the hot and oily breech. After a close escape from another T34/76 (and a Russian gunner with a very poor aim!), Wittmann managed to reach the edge of a small wood in order to plan his next move. While carrying out a quick recce on foot, Wittmann spotted a third enemy vehicle. Assuming that he had not been spotten, Wittmann was rocked off his feet when a terrific crash sounded around him. After dusting himself off, he found himself looking at the destroyed T34/76, its turret completely blown off and now sticking out of the ground like a flag-pole. Klinck's powers of observation, initiative and gunnery skills had been the obvious factor here: while both vehicles had fired simultaneously, Wittmann's gunner had been alert enough to locate, sight and hit the target. On returning to his cupola, Wittmann was the first to praise his skilful gunner.

After another near miss, following two misplaced shots from an itinerant T34/76, Wittmann quickly spotted another Soviet vehicle. Kicking the powerful Maybach engine to life, Koldenhöff skilfully manoeuvred the StuG III to allow Klinck a crack at the enemy Panzer. In a flash, the fourth Russian tank was obliterated. After another close encounter with a rather deceptive water crossing, expertly negotiated by Koldenhöff, Wittmann set out to locate three Russian vehicles he had seen earlier. After scanning the area, he saw the three T34/76s sitting with engines running on top of a hill. After Koldenhöff quickly moved the StuG. III to within 500 metres of the last Soviet Panzer, Klinck, quickly reacting to Wittmann's command, let off a round of 75mm armour-piercing shot, which found its way to the Russian vehicle with a resounding crack. The remaining T34/76s quickly directed their aim towards Wittman's vehicle, and Koldenhöff desperately moved the StuG III into position. Klinck let go another round - which bounced off the enemy tank. Loader Petersen was working overtime, and Klinck evetually managed to get a shot in, which seemed to have disabled the turret of the enemy machine. While all of this was happening, the third T34/76 had decided to head for safety. Their work seemingly done, Wittmann and his crew begin to head off, only to see the turret of the second T34/76 crank back into life! Petersen quickly slammed in another round into the breech, and the resulting shot saw the Russian vehicle burst into flames, its crew desperately trying to escape the inferno."

Ignoring the hero worship the short 7,5cm gun is achiving front turret and side turret/hull kills. These are not partial penetrations or forcing crews to abandon after enough love taps, the T-34s are exploding or bursting into flames.

http://www.panzerace.net/main/intro.asp

[ January 08, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Ex Bellator]

Hi Bastables, I found the above example hard to read as the authour seemingly wants to get inside Wittman's pants or somefink Sorry to be a pain, but are there any other examples that you happen to know of? I'd just like to see a more neutral example because I'm quite suprised (as a non-grog) with the apparent ease that short 75mms used to kill T-34s, but I'm ready to accept it.

In CMBB I sometimes chuckle when I see my opponents bringing T-34s to the early war battles. They are a piece of cake for a 50mm (or better) armed Panzer. One on one a Pz III will win most times. The only technique needed is to make sure the T-34 is Hull Down to you when you engage it which is simple enough. Your better optics, turret and crew will make sure you get the first hit straight through that front turret.

It's just too easy, and I feel it should be more challenging to dispose of them based upon my limited reading. However, examples like Bastables' seem to show that it was pretty simple to kill them after all.

[Bastables]

Whitman is a fairly famous chap look for some more sources after all his 6 T34s in one day is a famous encounter, this one was the first I found off google. I also don't understand how it could look easy, He takes on part of an 18 group of T-34s by himself and comes out on top by sub 500 metre ambushs and stalking. If it were easy He'd be in a Tiger and could begin lighting up the T-34s from 2km away.

I mean if a Pz regts weapon effectivness report that short 5cm guns can penetrate the turret while causing weld failures are not damming enough I don't know what is and I’m really not willing to trawl through my “library” and then type the bloody AAR that go with them just because you’re not willing to believe due to watching silly PBEM partners.

If you want more take a look yourself, short-range penetrations by Short 5cm and 7,5cm guns are not an unusual occurrences and give lie to

"CMBB T-34s should be as hardy as CMBB KVs". examples include Pz regt 31 successful engagements with T34s with PIII Kurz Nov 1942. Then there is the Turret up armouring of the T-34 in direct response to the vulnerability to 5cm guns.

[ January 09, 2003, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

It's just too easy, and I feel it should be more challenging to dispose of them based upon my limited reading. However, examples like Bastables' seem to show that it was pretty simple to kill them after all.

The real problem was an absence of 50mm ATGs, Stugs, and 50mm armed tanks in real life, all of which are routinely bought in CMBB battles. If you want to know why the T34 got its reputation with the Landser, equip the Germans with a small number of 37mm ATGs, and, err, that's it for AT work, apart from tank-hunter teams. Then bring up a large number of T34s.

While the Guderian example is interesting, one should not forget that the Tank unit he met was not just technologically superior, but also commanded by one of the finest Red Army tank commanders, M.T.Katukov. Which I suppose was probably more of a problem for the Germans than the fact that their tanks had problems with getting through the T34 armour.

There are statements that early war HC could not get through the Soviet armour, but these may refer to the KV1.

One reason for choosing long engagement ranges for the Germans could of course have been that they then can break off the engagement if they start losing it. As e.g. 13.PD found during the first few days of its attack, when it was quite roughly handled by Rokkossovskyi's (IIRC) counter-attack.

[SgtMuhammed]

You don't even need a large number. Just bring in a small number of 34s with a larger number of BTs or other tanks (as was actually the case) and fight them with nothing but PIIs and 37 armed PIIIs. You can even throw in a platoon of short PIVs if you want.

The problem I have with people saying things are too easy in the game is that they set them up that way. The only way for the Germans to have had a force composition the same as one encounters in most QBs is if they had waited till 42 to start the invasion. If you want to find out what it was really like then choose forces based on a real TO&E rather than based on what you need to ensure victory.

(No real reason for this I just love this Graemlin!

Thanks Para )

[ January 09, 2003, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

[Ex Bellator]

Thanks for the feedback, all very good and appreciated

[JasonC]

Wittman was special because he and his gunner were good enough to regularly hit small weak points. He reports that he defeated T-34s routinely by aiming for and hitting the turret ring - a weak point reported by others as well, but with the proviso that "chance hits" on the ring were all most (as opposed to Wittman's crew) achieved.

In your report you will notice there is no statement of the hit locations of most of the kills. In the case where the turret front is specified, notice that the first hit appears to take it out but actually does not, while a second does. Which fits perfectly with busting weld seams with the first impact and penetrating the weakened plate with the second. Wittman's own testimony elsewhere is that he aimed for the turret ring.

Here is another report from a unit of regulars, rather than an ace who can pick his impact point - "in the same report were also reported the main weak points of the tank: "hits against the rear drive-sprocket were succesful, along with chance hits on the turret ring".

A web site (URL below) states - "It was only on early 1942 that the new KwK 39 50mm L60 cannon appeared on the Pz III: with this the German crews were able to pierce the Soviet tank's front armor on ranges under 500 metres. When new 75mm L43 KwK 40 mounted on the Panzer IV appeared the firepower shifted even more to the German side." It gives an original document that supports the assertion -

German Pz Rgt 203's report on round effectiveness against Russian heavies -

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/intro_russian_tanks.htm

Scroll to the bottom to see the German regiment's report, in the boxes.

Notice, the penetrations by standard AP from 50L42 or 75L24 refer to hits between the 5th and 6th road wheel (lower side hull, unsloped, and with repeated hits using Pz Gr 39 from 50L42, probably because some hit the running gear), or point blank side turret shots with Pz Gr 40. Also "concentrated fire on the drivers slit", possibly. 75mm HEAT is reported effective against weak points on the front as well - specifically the MG ball. Other reports state that the driver's hatch was weaker than the rest of the glacis on the 1940 model in particular. Note that the reported ranges of effective use of HEAT probably reflect gun accuracy; not everyone is Wittman and his crew. Also notice that a "hindering effect" is reported for the standard AP types, with jamming the turret, destruction of the gun, and immobilization all possible. Which will progressively wreck a tank, obviously.

The penetration performance routinely seen in CMBB is reported only with 50L60 - in fact, the performance in CMBB with 50L42 Pz Gr 39 exceeds that reported by this regiment with 50L60 Pz Gr 39, and vastly exceeds that reported with 50L42 Pz Gr 40.

Note also on the overall operational issue of how the Germans won anyway, that the Russians lost 12,000 tanks in the first 3 weeks, unrecoverable. The Germans did not face long armor odds for the whole campaign. T-34s mostly engaged piecemeal, with 20 odd vehicles on an entire frontage typical. In cases were masses of them are documented as having been used, as with Kleist, the German advance ceased until they were dealt with, by means other that straight tank dueling.

From the same doctrine document that mentions breaking weld seams on turret hits, it says this -

"because the 5 cm KwK can only be expected to penetrate the flanks of the T-34 at close range, the following tactics have been proven to be correct in combating them:

a. attract and tie down the enemy frontally by having a Pz III take up the firefight. Choose a hull down position or drive in a zig-zag course to make it difficult for the opponent to hit the target.

b. at the same time, utilizing all available cover, two other Pz IIIs attempt to circumvent the T-34 to the right or left in order to gain a position on the flank or in the rear and knock him out at short range with Pz Gr 40 (i.e. sub-caliber AP) fired at the hull or rear.

c. when a Pz IV is available among our own panzers, it is to be employed in front of the opponent. The use of smoke shells can blind the T-34 or aid other panzers in closing in."

In then goes on to mention hail fire, not against targets at range but whenever there are numerous T-34s or KVs. And says specifically that they almost always break off the action, "impressed with the accuracy and rate of fire of the German panzers". This is clearly not a reference to long range fights - range is not mentioned in the passage at all - but to many vs. many fights, as opposed to fights against limited numbers of T-34s or KVs, which use the previous closing procedure.

Now, why on earth would the doctrinal panzer command be telling the tankers to use Pz Gr 40 from the flanks and rear at close range after a difficult closing procedure, covered by smoke from 75L24 if available, if both 75L24 and 50L42 could routinely KO T-34s from the front at 500-800 meters with run of the mill Pz Gr 39?

What is the discrepancy, then, in the modeling? Rexford and his models of the penetration performance of the German ammo I trust completely. The behavior against the sloped front and side hulls fits completely with the German AARs. What does not fit is the treatment of the "round" turret rating, its typical effect on the angle of impact to the armor.

If you look at the CM penetration ratings for the guns, and the Pz Rgt report above, at a first approximation the effectiveness of the slope of the turret is about the average of the 30 degree and 60 degree penetration numbers. Whereas the CMBB behavior we see is more like the 30 degree penetration number.

That would account for the whole difference seen in the combat reports and CMBB. Nothing systematically wrong with the CMBB penetration model is suggested. Judging the effect of "round" on effective armor slope is obvious a difficult subject involving many estimates. If the methods used for CMBB in this hard to model area disagree strongly with reports of actual combat and tactics, that is on its face evidence that the assumptions used in that difficult bit of modeling are off somewhat.

All I am suggesting is that in practice, "round" meant very roughly 45 degrees - or very roughly an interpolation between the CMBB listed 30 and 60 degree behavior - rather than typically meaning 30 degrees.

And no, that would not make T-34s fully as invunerable as KVs are now. I mentioned using KVs to see what it was like to fight them, in the context of demonstrating successful "hail fire", and the ability to fight against a tank one could not penetrate frontally from medium range. Obviously, when close to successful penetrations, spalling and shock and progressive degrading of armor, or weak point penetrations, would all be easier to achieve than when the round penetration rating is only half of the armor thickness hit, etc.

As for the point about 37mm vehicles, the issue is whether the T-34 turret is undermodeled against 50L42 and 75L24. I maintain that it is, that that particular match up is too easy. If so, it deserves to be corrected, regardless of how common those match ups were in 1941. Many of them will recur in 1942, for that matter.

[JasonC]

In an effort to be as constructive as possible, I offer the following as a sample "round armor model". When a round plate is struck, roll 1d100 to determine the effective slope to apply to that hit only -

1-5 - 15 degrees

6-15 - 30 degrees

16-30 - 40 degrees

31-70 - 45 degrees

71-85 - 50 degrees

86-95 - 60 degrees

96-100 - 75 degrees

Modifiers - conscript shooter +10, green shooter +5, regular shooter no modifier, veteran shooter -10, crack shooter -20, elite shooter -30, range over 1000 meters +10, range over 500 meters +5, range 251-500 meters no modifier, range under 250 meters -5, range under 100 meters -10.

The modifiers would reflect things like ability to aim at weak points. Suppose an elite shooter is under 100 meters and close enough to penetrate against 40 degrees of slope, to shock against 45 degrees, but not to penetrate against 50 degrees. Then with -40 cumulative modifiers, the round would penetrate 70% of the time and shock the remaining 30%. It would only be about 5% worse out to 250 meters. There is your Wittman behavior.

Suppose instead the range is 450 meters, the shooter veteran, and a 30 degree achieved slope is needed to penetrate, while 40 degree can shock. Then only 25% would penetrate (thanks to the veteran modifier), 15% more would shock, and 60% would ricochet. While at 550 meters with a regular shooter only able to shock at 30 degrees, penetration would become impossible (-5% for range) and shock only 10% of the time. And there is your Pz Rgt 203 and Panzer command training document behavior, more or less.

Obviously it could be tweaked, but I think it gives the general idea.

[ January 09, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Bastables]

The Pessimistic Penetration ranges for Pz Regt 203 are of course the victims of the German practice of writing up combat engagement ranges/aka firing trials at a 30 deg side angle......

You see this pessimistic practice in the Panther/Tiger bibles and in the penetration tables issued by DAK in 42.

Klink only hits the turret ring once in entire engagement. This is only noted because there is a turret ring hit.

Again the doctrine report states "result in penetrations and breaking open of the weld seams," This is the catastrophic failure of turret mantlet armour due to the "free-edge" effect.

I should have stated it before but the operational numbers and actions have nothing to do with your argument that 5cm KwK and 7,5cm KwK/24 cannot penetrate 41/42 T-34s at 500m battle ranges.

It is at range, T34s breaking off the action is a bit impossible at sub 500m ranges don't you think? A hail of fire front at 500m between 15 PIII, which can penetrate only the front turret versus 20 T-34 that can burst open the PIIIs at almost any angle at this range results in dead PIIIs. Building up a hail of fire versus a hand ful of T-34/KVs at short range is possible but it's not a good idea to attempt the same when the PIIIs are out numbered.

[ January 09, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

posted by jasonc --Intervention of T-34s in strength still held up von Kleist for several days early in the campaign. --

dubno?

posted by rex_bellator --I'd just like to see a more neutral example because I'm quite suprised (as a non-grog) with the apparent ease that short 75mms used to kill T-34s, but I'm ready to accept it.--

you know... i read the same example and even partly based a scenario - nogai steppe - upon it... but began to wonder if those weren't - in actuality - bt tanks wittmann killed... because achieving that kind of success with a stug 75 short against t34s in cmbb is beyond me...

a couple of thoughts/questions:

i use the 'kitchen sink' method in cmbb to kill t34s... i put as many units firing at once as possible, then highlight the t34 and press 'tab' so i'm right behind it at level 2, then listen for all of the richochets and the sometime penetrations... i don't know what this really proves or anything but just had to share...

question: were there really a lot more panzer IIIF and PZ IVD than PZIIIG-H and PZIVE-F at the outset of barbarossa?

anyhoo, with my own 'seat of the pants' experience against t34s in cmbb in 1941-based scenarios, i would say that perhaps they're already 'too cheap' but 'too weak' might be taking it a bit far...

[GRUMLIN]

Whoooo good replies there that make me realise that I am NOT a treadhead. However, I still lost my STUG due to stupid ammo selection by the tank crew...and no one seems to care anymore

G

[SgtMuhammed]

It was the fact that the bulk of German armor was made up of these weaker models that made them rush such vehicles as the Marder series into production.

Sorry G. once these threads get going they kind of take on a life of their own.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Andreas,

"The real problem was an absence of 50mm ATGs, Stugs, and 50mm armed tanks in real life, all of which are routinely bought in CMBB battles"

- maybe their rarity should be increased?

[JasonC]

Most of the Pz IIIs were 50L42 by the time of the invasion. The production model was the J (with short 50, good armor), while for the PzIV the production model was the F1. Not that many 37mm IIIs were made to begin with, some had been lost already, and others converted.

The thing is, though, only about half the Panzer force were the III and IV models, or StuGs. The other half were split roughly evenly between 37mm Czech models and 20mm Panzer IIs. But 50mm Pz IIIs were by no means a rare commodity in 1941. They were certainly a higher portion of the German fleet, than T-34s were of the Russian one.

For my persistent skeptic who still won't even face the issue, I repeat my question. Please address it, however you choose to, instead of dodging it with some tangential claim. I have addressed each point you have raised. If you honestly believe your own position, it should not be hard to do the same in return.

Why does the training document state that the 5 cm KwK is only effective from side or rear at close range? Why does the training document declare that the proper way to fight a T-34 with Pz IIIs and IVs is by closing on the flanks with the IIIs, then using Pz Gr 40, while the Pz IVs throw smoke? Why doesn't it say that "success is achieved at ranges of 800 meters or less by hits on the turret with Pz Gr 39", or anything remotely like it?

As for many on many fights, I think you underestimate both the odds the Germans typically had vs. the heavies, and also their superiority in such larger fights due to non gun-armor superiority in their tanks, and in doctrine and crew quality. 20 T-34s is as many as a Russian -brigade- had - the balance were lighter models. Operationally, such brigades often faced whole panzer divisions, or even corps.

Tactically, with poor doctrine and 2 man turrets, limited radios, etc, such clashes must often have opened with only a portion of the Russian force entering LOS. The first platoon creeps over a rise or whatever. Then what happens? The Germans talk to each other, with dedicated tank commanders coordinating the actions of platoons and companies. They also have a faster rate of fire, better vision, etc.

They do not simply pair off and duel one on one. 3 vs. 15 5 times in a row is not the same as 15 vs. 15 with both fully coordinated. A platoon of German tanks might easily "ring" one of the T-34s a dozen times in a minute. Any reply, let alone an accurate one, would be difficult. Is the first platoon still in the fight when the next two get LOS?

The point is simply that many vs. many tank engagements are not simply 1 on 1 duels scaled up. The larger the fight, the more the other quality edges the Germans held - besides gun and armor specs I mean - would tell.

But they didn't simple win all of the time, not against T-34s in numbers or well led. I gave examples where things went badly, instead. They did have an impact on the course of the campaign -AG South being slower than the others early, Tula holding long enough to be reinforced and hold the jaws of Typhoon apart e.g.

Here is what I'd like to see from skeptics who think the T-34 turret is the proper strength right now. Tell me why the training documents read as they do ("only effective side or rear at short range", etc), and why nobody is saying "just bring a Pz IIIH or a PV IVE and they are toast". Explain the panic the T-34 in particular caused (not the KV), and the rush to upgun to 50L60, field Marders etc. Why wasn't everyone just clamoring to replace Czech tanks with 50L42 Pz IIIs, if it was already so effective? Why wasn't it a KV panic, instead of T-34 panic? Also, please justify the approximately 30 degree slope effect for "round" armor seen in CMBB now, rather than 45 degrees, based on anything other than it being that way now.

[ January 10, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

For my persistent skeptic who still won't even face the issue, I repeat my question. Please address it, however you choose to, instead of dodging it with some tangential claim. I have addressed each point you have raised. If you honestly believe your own position, it should not be hard to do the same in return.

And who hasn't missed this guy! Be honest!

PS - many happy returns on the day, Jason. Good to see you where you belong.

[JasonC]

LOL.

Well, here is yet another installment in my dead horse appreciation society. I wanted to test Germans given their legit 1941 advantages - numbers (tactically that is, from concentration yada yada), crew quality - against T-34s as presently modeled. So I set up a simple "duel", on an open map with hills. 800 meter square map, the actual ranges with the hills wound up being 500 m typically, 300 m sometimes.

Germans - veteran platoon of 4 Pz III Hs. Good tanks for 1941, good crew quality, a slight edge in numbers.

Russians - green platoon of 3 T-34 M40. Poor crew, early T-34 model. But T-34s.

What happens? I tried it several times. The best strategy is to stay together, trying for a many on few. When the Germans stayed in a tight group of 4, and the Russians split 2 and 1, it happened that the 4 Germans faced off the 2 Russians at 450-500 meters.

This led to the first duel -

German hits - 11. 3 hull ricochet, 2 gun hits, 5 front turret penetrations, 1 front turret partial penetration. 2 T-34s KOed.

Russian hits - 1. Upper hull, shell broke up.

Then the 4 went looking for the last T-34. It came over a rise and engaged one Pz III at around 350 meters before the others had reached LOS. It KOed that Pz III with its first shot, on a front turret penetration. The remaining Pz IIIs then engaged at ranges of 300-400 meters. They destroyed the T-34 with 11 more hits -

4 hull ricochets, 1 turret ricochet (side angle), 1 gun hit, 5 front turret penetrations.

Overall - T-34s 2 hits, 1 penetration. Pz III Hs 22 hits, 10 penetrations plus 1 partial penetration, 3 gun hits.

Several other times I split up the Pz IIIs into pairs. Fighting that way, I regularly killed the T-34s but lost 2 Pz IIIs doing it.

Now, when the Germans get 22 hits to 2, yes they should win, even against T-34 armor with a relatively whimpy gun. They should manage to wreck the T-34s with gun hits and the like. But half of the hits front turret penetrations, with 50L42 firing ordinary PzGr 39?

[ January 10, 2003, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[SgtMuhammed]

You have touched on an issue I have with the 34 as modeled, crew AI. While I will be the first to admit that German tactical skill and gunnery were dramaticly greater too often in CMBB 34s appear and sit. They will take no action and fire no shots. While green crews will tend to be less accurate and decisive they will fire. Many will engage in panic fire where they fire as fast as they can and aiming is haphazard. Still they will put rounds down range.

Nothing is more frustrating (to me atleast) than watching a green T34 line up (bright red engagement line) on a P(fill in blank) from the flank or rear and then just sit there. I have had tanks sit for almost an entire turn before their target notices them and kills them. Time delay following orders is one thing but "buck fever" by a tank crew is disturbing.

[Ex Bellator]

Still following this great thread - apologies to the initial poster for the hijacking!

Jason - good test, will you get chance to run one with my 'dead cert' method of disposing of T-34s, namely - hit them when they are hull down?

When you don't get any hull hits at all they are obviously even easier to dispose of. Don't worry if you can't get around to it, hopefully I'll set one up this weekend if it adds any value to this thread.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Why does the training document state that the 5 cm KwK is only effective from side or rear at close range? Why does the training document declare that the proper way to fight a T-34 with Pz IIIs and IVs is by closing on the flanks with the IIIs, then using Pz Gr 40, while the Pz IVs throw smoke? Why doesn't it say that "success is achieved at ranges of 800 meters or less by hits on the turret with Pz Gr 39", or anything remotely like it?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the same "anti T34 instruction" set says the front turret is penetrated at close range along with causing weld failure due to penetration? Instead you ignore it and then attempt to shade it so that it only causes weld failures. Incredible and quite disingenuous at best along with lengthening “close range” to 800m.

Instead you talk on operational stoppages and at the end wave pessimistic "Combat condition" firing trials, which for the Germans require the targets to stand at a 30 deg angle. After all this you want me to prove my position after you dodge the issue constantly while throwing out operational setbacks/successes and other assorted silliness. You’ll forgive me if I preferred not to engage on points that are at best red herring arguments.

Why up grade to longer 5cm L/60 and 7,5cm KwK 40? What a fatuous question, the T-34s could fire and penetrate the PIIIs and PIV from over 1000m away the Panzers could only gain penetrations at sub 500m to the side hull/turret and only the turret front.

The issue of Pz 38ts is another red herring argument; there were not enough PIIIs to go around for the number of Pz Divs. With this line of reasoning I could argue that the T 34-85 was a poor design and utterly worthless versus Panther/Tigers and PIV because there were still T34-76 formations right up to the end of the war. Or that the T-34 was a poor AFV during 42/43 because brigade numbers had to be made up with T-60s and other members of its family along with KVs.

Guerdian being “pushed around” and Pz 38t on strength have nothing to do with the ability of 5cm KwK and 7,5cm kurz to penetrate the front turret of T-34 variants of 1941 and early 42. 42 T34 turrets being up armoured so that they are impervious to 5cm KwK is. Hexagon T-34 turret not only up armouring but also changing from the curved welds so that the free-edge penetration is again a reflection of this.

Keep on beating your dead horse by hitting the ground and trees beside it.

[JasonC]

I am not ignoring the report of weld seams breaking. I take it as a weak point report, along with the other items about the turret ring, possible jamming of the turret, etc. They are reporting anything that has worked.

Multiple hits, or hits at just the right distance from an edge at close enough range, can create weak point penetrations. It is not something the German tankers can rely on because the affected area is too small. That is why the rest of the tactical discussion places no reliance on it - any more than placing reliance on turret ring penetrations. Note they say hits on the gun mantle, not any front turret hit. They do not recommend just aiming for the turret front from 500-800 meters because that did not work reliably. In CMBB, it does.

Please provide an estimate of the cross sectional area of the T-34 front aspect that supposedly could be penetrated reliably by 50L42 or 75L24 AP at 500 meters. You can throw in the weak points, the places were the edge effect is strongest, the turret ring, flattest impacts.

I've given you some sample test results from CMBB as it is now - out of 15 hits on the turret area by 50L42 at 300-500 meters (vs. the 1940 model T-34), I record 3 gun hits, 1 deflection, 1 partial penetration, and 10 successful penetrations. 67% go in completely and 93% do something effective. Does that fit the weak area analysis of the edge effect - weld seams thesis, or not? Does it fit with the training document report, or not?

As for why I brought up 800 meter shooting, I was referring to CMBB as it stands today. The German mediums can hole the T-34 turret front regularly at 500-800 meters. They have enough penetration rating to get through 45mm at 30 degrees that far away, and in CMBB that is enough to kill 45mm "round" rated plates. They do not have to hit a turret weak point, or from 100-150 meters, or with Pz Gr 40, anything remotely like it.

As for the Germans being vunerable to all the replies out to 1000-1500 meters, not once they get 60mm front armor tanks like the IIIH and IVE. The Russian rounds start bouncing from their hulls, too, making turret hits by either side the way to kill. If for 1942 you put up late Js (with 50+20 fronts and 50L60) against cast turret T-34s, the Js will likewise rule. As the thickness of the Russian turrets improve, the armor quality rating drops, and the better German guns arrive. The Russians do not have gun and armor dominance over the leading Pz IIIs in 1942 or 1941, as CMBB has things today.

As for why I brought up Pz 38s and Pz IIs, and other operational points about how the Germans managed in 1941, it was in response to another fellow's comment about the reason it was still tough for the Germans. He advanced the notion that perhaps 50mm IIIs and IVs could KO T-34s reliably, but it was still hard for German tankers in general because 50mm IIIs and IVs were rare. That is the only reason I brought up the fleet composition point. Roughly half the German AFVs had 50L42 or 75L24, which in CMBB reliably kill T-34s from the front at range.

For those interested, the German Barbarossa fleet composition was 746 Pz IIs, 149 Pz 35t, 623 Pz 38t, 965 Pz IIIs, 439 Pz IVs, and 250 StuG III. 5/6 of the Pz IIIs in the overall German fleet has 50L42 by then. Over the course of the campaign, the portion of 50L42 and 75L24 vehicles was going up, as they were a higher portion of continuing production than of the existing fleet.

See, some might think that the Germans could not possibly have won so convincingly in 1941 if the T-34 was as strong as the training document and Pz 203 report say it was. The "round" armor behavior may be tweaked to weaken the T-34 precisely to make the Pz III and IVs more effective against them, because some can't imagine how the Germans did it if the T-34s were that strong. I have tried to show that doesn't follow, that they could have (and I argue, did) win dramatically even against T-34s stronger than depicted in CMBB.

As for the contention that the Pz Rgt 203 reports are based on stage tests with high side angle, that is not the case. It is based on combat incidents, not staged side angle tests. They are reporting what worked or didn't in their actual fights. Notice the limits acknowledged in the report on KV engagements, where they say they don't have all the data on this or that weapon against them, because they only fought 5 KVs.

[JasonC]

Another outing, for 1942. 4 late Js, vet, vs. 3 cast turret model T-34s, green. A 1500 meter map, flat as a billiard table so no hull down or close range conditions. The Js suffered 1 immobilizing track hit, two partial penetrations of the lower front hull (the weakest plate on the late J) that did no serious damage. Only a handful of other hits, that all bounced. The ranges varied from 1000 to 1500 meters.

The Js replied with dozens of hits, many of them of course hull ricochets. A few hits on the turret ricocheted, from side angle or longer range or both in combination. A few gun hits and track hits helped, with one T-34 abandoned after a gun hit and a track immobilization. But they also penetrated the turret fronts, at 1000-1250 meters, repeatedly, destroying 2 T-34s that way.

With 4 vs. 3, vet vs. green, 3 man turrets, and a higher velocity and therefore more accurate gun, higher ROF, the Germans were well favored in all of the aspects of the fight besides gun and armor specs. But they weren't worse off in that category either. On the contrary. So they not only won, they didn't have to close to do it.

Should late Js be strong tanks against T-34s, especially relatively early ones? Sure. But if "round" counted as more like 45 degrees rather than typically 30 degrees, the Js would have had to close to fight effectively, or benefited from non-penetration damage, hail-fire effects, or side aspect shots.

[Ex Bellator]

Jason, should the 'Curved' modifier be tweaked as per your suggestions, do you think it is reasonable to do it at no extra cost or would you prefer to see a points hike for T-34s? It makes a big difference if it takes out a whole class of German tanks which can tackle them head on.

I think that T-34s are way under priced in 1941 compared to their rarity (as well as having the dodgy 'curved' modifier) so would like to see both done. I'm very interested to hear what you think on that aspect.

[JasonC]

I do think the rariety factor should be higher for all of the heavies in 1941, yes. That strikes me as the best way to handle it, but the details could get messy, I realize.

Right now, the rariety premium for T-34s and KVs is 20 and 40 in July, 10 and 20 in October, and 0 and 5 in December of 1941. BTs are 0, 10, and 10 at those dates. Meanwhile, 120mm mortars are 30 for all of them, and 122mm howitzers and 50 for all of them.

Methinks the heavy tanks were a bit rarer than medium artillery support. Not entirely comparable I know, because category budgets are supposed to cover part of the issue. But no premium to speak of for the best tanks, in Oct to Dec of 1941, strikes me as curious - especially with the sizable premiums for perfectly ordinary forms of artillery support.

Yes, I know T-34s were coming out of the factories rapidly, over the course of 1941. Hardly explains the KV number, though - they weren't, particularly. And I believe there were still large numbers of the pre-war lights left. The rariety factor of the T-34 should drop. But from 50 to 20 is a drop - it doesn't have to go from 20 to 0.

Incidentally, something of the same is seen with some towed guns. For instance, there was nothing rare about the German 105mm howitzer - it was the most common field piece in the army. But appearing on map, you pay a 50% rariety premium for them.

No doubt they wanted to reflect them mostly being used indirect and so off map. But it compounds with the T-34 treatment, because along with 88 FLAK the 105mm howitzers firing HEAT, direct, was part of a German "gun front" counter to T-34s in 1941. Actually they also used 100mm guns too (rather than howitzers - much higher muzzle velocity), which could hole even KVs with AP.

I could see premiums on T-34s and KVs as high as 50-100 in July, 30-60 in October, and still 20-40 in December - instead of at the outset. I realize they were probably trying to go by some fixed criterion of the number of a type available. But it seems to me the positioning of the type within the overall fleet is relevant.

That is, it makes sense to pay some rariety premium for the best 1/6th of the overall tank fleet, if that is what you are getting. As opposed to the bottom end (T-26s), or middle (BTs). Something like that seems to have been done - perhaps even overdone - with the arty modules.

Random rariety would still make them occasionally show up at only their "fair price". But right now, they are QB bargains, no question. And that could be made more pronounced with revisions to the curved armor model.

My intention is not play balance effects - quite the contrary, it is tactics accuracy about a "classic" match up and combined arms problem - so some change the other way on rariety might well be in order if "curved" is tweaked to mean "45 degrees, most of the time".

Pz IVs might wind up with a higher rariety factor too, by the same logic. But that would not be a serious drawback. Pz IIIs with 50L42 would in any case remain relatively common - along with Pz 38ts and Pz IIs, to be sure.

A good issue, thanks for raising it.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I am not ignoring the report of weld seams breaking. I take it as a weak point report, along with the other items about the turret ring, possible jamming of the turret, etc. They are reporting anything that has worked.

Incredible you just keep doing it, It says the Ap shells hitting the mantlet result in penetrations and breaking of the weld seams, its not a weak point penetration any more than the poor quality Italian armour cracking when penetrated by 2pdr shot. This sort of “shading” or wilful mis-reading is continuously used by you, along with frankly irrelevant operational concerns and specious references to weapon upgrades and the continued deployment of Pz 38t.

Please do continue to “beat the dead horse” while magnmiously calling for your “detractor” for proof while debating in a fundamentally dishonest manner, you’ve certainly disgusted me enough to “leave the field” to you.

PS

I also enjoy the gambit of calls for mathmatical proof when you yourself have provided none.

[ January 11, 2003, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Andreas,

"The real problem was an absence of 50mm ATGs, Stugs, and 50mm armed tanks in real life, all of which are routinely bought in CMBB battles"

- maybe their rarity should be increased?

To be honest, I do not think that would solve it, since the cost of these weapons is quite low anyway. If people want them, they will buy them. A bit like King Tigers.

What would help is to have batteries instead of individual guns, with discounts if you buy batteries. So you could e.g. get a battery of four 37mm PAK35 or one 50mm PAK36. I know which one I would go for. We suggested that during beta testing, but sadly it proved to be too complicated to implement. Maybe in the rewrite.