STUGGED UP AGAIN

[Ex Bellator]

OK the conversation has moved on, but I've finally got around to posting Jason's picture - sorry for the delay. Hope it's still useful.

[Andreas]

Well, just ran the 750m tests 8 more times.

Totals now come to, including the previous five runs:

Penetrations 63%

Partial penetrations 9%

Ricochets 18%

Gun hits 10%

Total T34 killed now 28

Total PIII killed now 36 (add to this a few shocked and one immobilised)

2-3 turns and it is all over. This is certainly affected by the fact that the T34s are dug in, therefore hull hits are much less likely.

[Renaud]

JasonC:

I was wrong to state only a 'few' levels of elevation are needed. You need a lot of elevation, OR the enemy tank needs to be canted at an angle which is advantageous for the shooter.

My observations are entirely non-scientific and gleaned from playing multiple staged QB's with various early MK III/IV tanks against early T34's in an attempt to find a way to defeat them. I don't believe trigonometry was involved. During these games I discovered where and how to negate the slope on the T34, by firing at them from high hills or while the target is canted at an angle which presents <30 degree angle on major surfaces. I noticed that from certain aspects and angles, I could get regular penetrations.

I sitll hold that angle of attack on armor surfaces is dramatically affected by the relative positioning and orientation of shooter and target. A 60 degree plate otherwise impervious to everything on the battlefield can be reduced to tin foil by a slight change in vehicle position. For instance, T34 moves down a hill into a valley and is fired on while angled down and toward shooter firing from opposing hill. You don't need a scientific calculator to visualize how this situation is perilous for the T34.

My whole point is that early T34 armor relies on presenting >30 degree slope to defeat early german ATG. If you use tactics which eliminate the T34 armor slope you can penetrate all the T34 armor faces pretty easily with 50l42. If not you are forced to rely on getting the turret front center penetration or side lower hull.

Obviously mostly flat ground is going to negate this possibility as you will never catch the T34 at a good angle.

[JasonC]

So let me get this straight, Andreas. Your own tests show you that at out to 1000 yards, the -short- 50 is 4 times as likely to at least partially penetrate the T-34 turret front as to ricochet (ignoring the random noise from gun hits), and you think that is -correct-? If that is not routine KO of the T-34 via turret hit out to 1000 yards, I don't see what is.

Now, please go to the training document where the German panzer forces doctrine setters say, the short 5cm KwK is only effective at close range from the flanks, with Pz Gr 40 no less, and point out the place were it says "except, of course, you can just duel hull down at -a full kilometer- with Pz Gr 39 and you will beat them, because front turret hits routinely KO the T-34 out to 1 km". Christ, even Bastables was (so far) only trying to maintain "sometimes at 500m", now you've got twice that distance, 80% of the hits, and think it is correct?

You honestly think that performance is right? For the Pz 38t, likewise? Why in hell did the Germans jump through such hoops, then? Guderian is just a plain liar, right?

You also think the 28 should easily kill them. So where are the AARs that say, "in case T-34s appear, do not send for 88 FLAK or 105 howitzers, just construct a gun front out of 28s if you have them, or 50s, or if neither is available just use any medium tank on them".

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Which is simply grasping at straws trying to save an indefensible CMBB model in which *everything* hits 30 degrees or less and goes in.

By the way, I am not defending any model, and neither am I clutching at straws. Your reaction to a serious question shows that you do not seem to trust your model very much either. Your claim of 'only 10% deflections' looks like there was a bit of hype going on now, after some testing. You still have not addressed the matter of lateral vs. horizontal dispersion to any satisfaction, beyond rambling on about absent laser range finders, which is really not particularly relevant.

Your impression of the sPzB41 seems to be that it was a pointless weapon. Again, one expert on German guns begs to differ. Asking for combat reports of the gun is a bit disingenous, if you think about the numbers in which it was fielded.

This is not saying that something may not be wrong with the BFC model. But equally, your overhyped claims with no basis are also wrong, and the real difference between what you see in the game, and the numbers you suggest appears not to be that great. And it may well be explained by aiming and low horizontal dispersion to some degree, because even in the absence of laser range finders, German tankers were taught to aim. Surprisingly enough.

[Jarmo]

Now, I am still at a loss why you find it so difficult to accept that German gunners will aim at a point that they can penetrate, instead of aiming at a point that they can not penetrate.

Unless my memory fails me badly.

BTS stated that they tested a system where gunners did just that,

but it lead to "killer bee" light guns, so they took the code

away, and now there is nothing in game that'd make gunners aim for

vulnerable bits. Gunners dont even aim at turret if that's the

only vulnerable part in tank.

I'm getting a feeling both "sides" here are just tossing arguments

to "win", even if they dont believe in them themselves.

Such lawyerisms ill fit a search for knowledge...

And I'm swaying from one side to another here,

not yet convinced either way... :cool:

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You honestly think that performance is right? For the Pz 38t, likewise? [snip]

You also think the 28 should easily kill them. So where are the AARs that say, "in case T-34s appear, do not send for 88 FLAK or 105 howitzers, just construct a gun front out of 28s if you have them, or 50s, or if neither is available just use any medium tank on them".

Sorry Jason, but first I never said anything about the 38(t). Secondly, your ignorance of TO&Es is showing again (Remember the Firefly discussion? I do.) There were not many of the sPzB41 going around, and according to Etterlin they were initially issued to infantry and pioneer battalions (by late 1942 there were small numbers of them in PzGren regiments), so maybe you are just not looking at the right AARs? Now, assembling a PAK front out of 50L60 ATGs seems quite sensible to me, since it can actually deal with the T34 to a reasonable distance, and did so historically. But nice try to throw out the discussion, which after all is about the 50L42.

Guderian - well, maybe a liar, maybe not. But certainly in his memoirs he is more likely to put his defeat down to Soviet supertanks than to be surprised by Katukov's quite well-lead attack. He is hardly going to write - '...and I did not get anywhere at Tula because Katukov outsoldiered me, now is he'? At least that is a suspicion I would have, even if it ran counter to any thesis that 'the side with the better tanks lost'. Other posters may disagree.

Finally - do I think it is correct? I don't know. Could be, could not be, I am no expert. I just enjoy demolishing your hyperbolic claims (10% ricochet; laser-range finders, horizontal equals lateral dispersion etc), to be quite honest. Seems high to me, then again, I have seen a statement by a German officer dismissing the T34 early on, saying his division never developed any respect for it, since they handled it roughly on the first encounter (IIRC that was in Glantz 'Early period of war' proceedings).

[JasonC]

I do hope that people realize that at 1000 yards, the T-34's own rounds bounce from the hull of Pz III Hs. Either side needs a turret hit to kill, therefore. I leave it as an exercise for the reader which tank is more likely to get the first one. (Optics, rate of fire, 3 man turrets, realistic quality levels...)

The only edge the T-34 would have in such exchanges is that its round overpenetrates the Pz III H turret better than the reverse, and its round is a larger caliber with large HE burster, so presumably it will have more behind armor effect on both counts.

[rexford]

Some of the T34-vs-PzKpfw IIIg controversey can be traced back to playtest comments provided by this writer.

U.S. tests with high hardness armor (450 Brinell), such as carried by T34, indicated that if the projectile diameter was greater than the armor thickness, the armor lost resistance compared to good quality medium hardness material.

Equations based on the U.S. tests suggest that when 50mm AP hits 45mm at 450 Brinell Hardness, the armor should lose 17% of the resistance.

During 1942, the Germans prepared armor plates in the 42mm to 53mm thickness range using Russian steel composition and hardening to 450 Brinell. The plates were then fired on by 37mm and 50mm guns at various angles, with some unusual results.

50mm AP rounds at 100m fully penetrated 47.2mm at 60.5 degrees, and 42.1mm at 65 degrees. 16 hits failed to penetrate. So 2 of 18 hits fully penetrate armor that should never have been completely defeated. These test results suggest that the Russian armor would resist with less than optimum performance.

The above is the basis of my theory on high hardness armor deficiencies, which was brought out during the playtest period.

With armor deficiency theory, 75L43 APCBC penetrates T34 high hardness glacis at 1600m, if resistance is assumed to be the same as medium hardness good armor 75L43 is limited to 460m. 75L43 case suggests that high hardness deficiency is real.

================================================

Now, when 50mm AP is fired against 40mm plates at 40 degrees in German 1942 tests, a very easy target, 2 of 5 hits fail to fully pierce the armor. Shatter gap, from the sound of it.

Penetration data suggests that early war German AP rounds were softer and more prone to shatter than the later war stuff. Shatter gap occurs when a round has more than enough velocity and mass to defeat the armor, but the back pressure from quickly moving armor causes the projectile nose to break apart.

50L42 AP penetrates about 55mm at 500m, 45mm at 40 degrees resists like 71mm vertical plate if medium hardness, and 59mm vertical if U.S. high hardness modifiers are applied.

Say 50mm L42 is firing on T34 side plates at 250m, the penetration is 66mm, the high hardness resistance after modifier is 59mm, the round should penetrate.

No, it should not!

Shatter gap tests show that when uncapped ammo overpenetrates the armor by 1.05 to 1.30 or so (but sometimes much, much higher), the projectile stands a high probability of breaking up on the armor. When rounds overpenetrate by 1.01 to 1.04, or greater than 1.30, expect penetrations.

At 250m, 50L42 AP overpenetrates 45mm at 40 degrees by 66mm/59mm, or 1.12.

At 100m, 50L42 AP overpenetrates T34 side hull by 73mm over 59mm, or 1.24, so a good chance the rounds will break up and fail due to shatter gap.

At 500m, 50mm L60 AP overpenetrates T34 side hull armor by 77mm/59mm, or 1.31. If the overpenetration ratio's hold with 50mm L60, the gun should penetrate from 0m to 500m, and then fail from 500m to nearly 1000m. Then it should penetrate some at ranges beyond 1000m.

The above cases show that 50mm AP failures against T34 side hull can be explained on the basis of shatter gap.

In German armor acceptance tests against 80mm vertical plate, 50mm uncapped AP was expected to fail even though it could fully penetrate over 100mm in other tests. Explanation is shatter gap.

In British tests against Tiger side armor, 2 pounder AP that was capable of defeating over 80mm of vertical plate failed to fully break through 62mm of Tiger lower hull side plate. Shatter gap.

[ January 31, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[JasonC]

Andreas, you aren't demolishing, you are establishing. You think 20% ricochets are meaningfully different from 10% ricochets. I said 10 because that is what I saw, relating the conditions of my test. It sure as heck into 2/3rds of the time, is it? 50L42 penetrations at range are not occasional or rare, they are normal. Ricochets are rare.

As for aiming, Jarmo has largely addressed it but I can extend the remark. The reason they dropped it is it lead to entirely unhistorical outcomes that completely contradict all of the relevant AARs about how people actually fought. It makes underpowered guns into magical uberweapons against every tank in existence, because there is no tank without a vision port or whatever. It completely falsifies the history of tactics.

Does this mean the men didn't aim? Of course not. It means they didn't hit what they aimed at appreciably better than they hit everything else. The reason they didn't is obvious - it was hard enough to hit the whole tank, and not something done successfully with every shot. Hitting something a 10th or a 20th the size of the tank successfully, was therefore rare.

And the same it true of short 50s regularly KOing T-34s out to a kilometer. All of the AAR and tactical doctrine evidence is against. CMBB encourages it. Whatever the cause of that difference, it is wrong. It is obvious to me the cause of it is how "round" is modeled, as a low variance, 30 degrees or less at least 80% of the time.

As for Guderian being a liar, he went over the ground personally, he saw the wrecks, he spoke to the men in command, he spoke to the wounded in hospital afterward. He gave a full report at the time in which he recommended serious changes to German tank designs, which were taken seriously enough they helped set off the upgrade scramble. It is not a matter of CYA in his memoirs. It is confirmed by numerous other contemporary reports, and by contemporary doctrine. He was only the developer of the panzer force, what they hell did he know.

Others have insinuated that it was unusual because the Russians stood off so far. But that is rather hard to square with the facts (1) that after withdrawing onto a PAK front and infantry, the Germans eventually did possess the field, over which Guderian walked (2) that there were dead T-34s about, just not as many as dead Panzers (3) that the tankers told him their Panzers had maneuvered for rear turret shots, something rather hard to do at 1500 yards. And rather unnecessary, if CMBB is to be at all believed. If they tried to, they did so for part of the engagement only, or not entirely successfully.

Moreover, the experience was not so exceptional that the like never occurred. It was just exceptionally well documented and related at the time. Von Kleist was held up in a similar fashion, and the means employed against th T-34s then were essentially the same - PAK front, break up Russian all arms coordination, change the axis of advance. Not "lets just duel hull down at 800 yards".

Andreas professes not to be defending the CMBB model, and not to know or have any opinion about what the answer should be. I find both claims difficult to believe. If literally true, it just means he hasn't given 5 minutes thought to the subject. There is no way the Germans would have gone to such doctrinal lengths as advocating closing on the flanks to aim at the engine compartment with Pz Gr 40 at 200 yards, if front turret hits reliably KOed at 1000. The German panzer force was not led by men who were clinically insane.

[JasonC]

Here is my problem with that explanation, Rexford. The anomously penetrations (in CMBB, not in the tactical AAR record) are not restricted to calibers larger than the plate thickness, where you say hardness weakening commences. On the contrary, they are conspicuous with rounds smaller than plate thickness (37L48 and 28/20 T), and ones essentially equal to it (50L42 vs. either 45mm or 52mm T-34 turret fronts).

If anything, it is the 75L24 that underperforms these other rounds in CMBB, compared to what AARs say about it (success of 75L24 against T-34 turret fronts are much better supported by the AAR record that ones by 37L48. In CMBB, the latter are easier). So if what you say is what is going on, perhaps the offsetting factors are larger than thought.

I find it highly plausible that caliber vs. plate thickness hardness effects ("shatter" vs. "boring") are going on historically. And it is believable that German ammo had shatter gap problems. But if those are already included in CMBB performance (as I took you to mean - please correct me if I am wrong about that), it would seem both may be bigger than they are being modeled. Because compared to the AARs, it is the 75L24 that comes off about right in CMBB, while all of the smaller rounds seem to dramatically outperform their historical counterparts. And that effect seems to be larger, the smaller the round.

Does harder armor peform better than normal models would say, against shells below the caliber of plate thickness, particularly when the shells involved are ones vunerable to shatter gap? Because, I'd speculate, the force on a small, high velocity shell boring through a harder plate might be higher? If that were so, it would be the performance of the 37s and such that would suffer the most.

While the armor weakening associated with "busting" (armor too hard), might be most apparent in a big round like the 75L24 - which, perhaps, resists the forces of the collision better and so experiences less of a shatter gap effect?

I still think there is a serious problem with how "deterministically" "curved" is being treated, as an angle. From the AAR side alone, there is little reason to believe that 50L42 regularly penetrated T34 turret fronts at 1 km range. Perhaps they encountered effective angles from the turret sufficient to put them below 1.3 and shatter. But the usual AAR report is that the shells "skidded off" the well-angled plate.

On the overpenetration needed to get past shatter gap, what about APCR in this respect? Because the Germans report not only that (with 50L42) Pz Gr 39 regularly failed against T-34 sides, but that Pz Gr 40 succeeded, but only at close range. I haven't heard of any longer range at which penetration was restored in that case.

At any rate, I'd love to hear more of what you have to say about all of this. What angle is the T-34 turret front producing in CMBB, with what variations? How much does the 50L42 overpenetrate it by, according to the formulas, before shatter gap stuff is considered? Or, what is the angle of failure for 50L42 at 500m, and at 1000m, vs. 45mm of armor - with and without shatter gap considered?

[ January 31, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Andreas, you aren't demolishing, you are establishing. You think 20% ricochets are meaningfully different from 10% ricochets. I said 10 because that is what I saw, relating the conditions of my test. It sure as heck into 2/3rds of the time, is it? 50L42 penetrations at range are not occasional or rare, they are normal. Ricochets are rare.

I consider an 80% difference 'meaningful', but I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

Apart from that, the test I ran does not tell you anything about hit probability in general, or likelyhood to take out a T34 from the front, just something about likelyhood and relationship of hits in a specific area, with an over-emphasis on the turret hit numbers, because I ignored upper hull hit ricochets (all of them ricocheted). It was aimed at looking at the relationship between area that could be penetrated on the turret-front, and area that could not be penetrated at the turret front. Apart from that it has no meaning, because the setup and the data collection were not trying anything else.

Therefore, if you just look at these figures, 50L42 equipped tank effectiveness is artificially boosted. Yet still, the end of the game shows that losses of the 50L42 equipped tank are on the order of 50% higher in a straight-forward duel (assuming that the shocked/gun-damaged tanks are going to be knocked out eventually). I believe that if you did the test with non dug-in T34s, that number would climb, making any non-hull-down duel at at least 750m even more of a losing proposition for the German armour force overall, a point which you also have neatly ignored. Which is in line with the doctrinal documents you like to toss about. Just for different reasons.

1. Your idea that the 50L42 equipped panzers can just stand up to the T34 at range without using some form of tactics is clearly not born out by these duels. And this is with the IIIH, with the IIIG or IVD it is not even a contest at 750m, the T34s win any time in a straight shoot-out.

2. Have you read up on the sPzB41 yet, or are you willing to tell me where you have that idea from that it was a common gun in 1941, and why it would not penetrate the T34?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

50L42 PzIII vrs. same T-34:

Same as above, except that turret front hits that didn't cause a penetration were merely "very unusual" rather than "quite rare." It seemed that only within, say, at most 15 degrees, was there much of a chance for a deflection.

Curved seems to mean "It'll bounce a shot if you're very lucky, but you should think of it as flat."

You mean worse or even better in line than the German Combat trials that show the T-34 front turret proof versus KwK 5cm at a 30deg angle?

[ January 31, 2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[JasonC]

The reason the difference between 10% deflections and 20% deflections is immaterial, is because either gives the same expectation for actually getting one of the beasties. You need 2-3 hits to find the turret, but if you do it will go in. You do not need to accumulate enough hits to rap the turret several times, hoping that the best of them gets in.

If the deflection chance was 40-60%, that would make a serious difference. If it were 60-70%, that would again be a serious difference. Up to 75-80, and it is again a serious difference. It is not the absolute size of the number, but the effect it has on expected number of hits needed to KO a T-34.

As for 28s, the reason I don't expect them to have routinely killed T-34s from the front at range is that no 1941 German source I've seen has ever related that one ever did. This is admittedly an argument from silence - perhaps they just didn't matter. I see the same sort of performance numbers for the better 37s (L48), and none of the German reports say those KOed T-34s at range from the front, either.

As for 750m, it is actually something of a "sweet spot" for the T-34 vs. the Pz III H. Because farther, the H hull bounces the T-34's shots almost as easily as the reverse. But I'll take the Hs any day with CMBB modeling and under realistic 1941 conditions of numbers, crew quality, and supporting arms. Green 1941 model 34s vs. a higher echelon size of mixed vet and regular Hs haven't got a prayer, at any range.

If you make them all regulars and make the numbers equal, I'd expect the T-34s to do marginally better, and to actually be better off in the close range duel (where their hull hits kill, and the IIIs replies don't) than one at long range (where either needs turret hits, but the III has better optics and rate of fire).

[Tarquelne]

You mean worse or even better in line than the German Combat trials that show the T-34 front turret proof versus KwK 5cm at a 30deg angle?

This?

Pz regt 203 report ... 30 deg ... PIV’s Lang penetrating shermans/T-34 at sub 800m. Pz regt 203 “combat trial” engagement ranges are completely at odds with Pz regt 33 reports that 5cm KwK penetrates T34 Hull/turret side armour at 400m and turret front at 400m.

I did see numerous penetrations, and it didn't take a PIV Lang. What ranges were the 203's tests. Roughly 20% ricochet rate seems to be what Andreas and I are getting at 700-750m, as I'm sure you know from reading subsequent messages. I didn't test at 400m.

Question answered, yes? That was painless.

How about we try backing up a bit? B, how close do you think a "real life" 50L42 would need to be to "routinely" score front turret penetrations on a '41 T34. (Ideally, answer both in % of total hits and % of shots taken.) Now, what's your value for "routinely". Finally, same basic questions, but with regard to how it is in CMBB.

[ February 01, 2003, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Tarquelne]

Whoops.

[ February 01, 2003, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Tarquelne]

1. Your idea that the 50L42 equipped panzers can just stand up to the T34 at range without using some form of tactics is clearly not born out by these duels.

I keep wondering about the frequency of "duels" in which tanks go at it front turret to front turret in WWII. I don't suppose there's some data on what % of the T-34s KO'd in ground combat were disabled by front turret hits, is there? If such damage isn't unusual then that would seem to support CMBB's model.

Turret front to turret front duels are not all _that_ uncommon in games I play, but as we all know CMBB battles as a whole are not esp. representational. That whole "fairness" thing.

Hmm... there's this:

Most of the KOed T34s in the pictures had their turrets facing towards the rear of the tank. This suggests to me that the T34s were out maneuvered by the Germans on the battlefield.

(From A.E.B.'s post.) Assuming that's true, why would the Germans go to the trouble?

Because it's simply the smart thing to do, to minimize losses? That makes sense.

Because it's what they _had_ to do to reliably get kills? That makes sense, too.

Well, just ran the 750m tests 8 more times.

Totals now come to, including the previous five runs:

Penetrations 63%

Partial penetrations 9%

Ricochets 18%

Gun hits 10%

Total T34 killed now 28

Total PIII killed now 36 (add to this a few shocked and one immobilised)

How does that stack up against historical equal number slug fests at a similar range? My understanding is that the Germans avoided such things... because they'd take 7:9 losses? Well, that's a good reason to. But (I think) Jason and other's critical of the T-34s current armor in CMBB would maintain that the losses should be wieghted even more heavily against the Germans. Correct? (If not, I'm not sure why this discussion needs to continue.)

Do you have some AARs that show heavier losses in similar circumstances, Jason? Or, if you want to avoid the "sweet spot", how about suggesting another duel test (Range, number of tanks), and stating what you think the result should be?

A few simple tests (5 vrs. 5 - no hulldown/dug in, Vet Pz vrs. Reg T-34) had the Pz's getting wiped out at both 415m and 1000m, with little damage to the T-34s. Any weakness in the T-34 turret front didn't seem to be significant - hull hits and non-disabling turret hits were too common. So, even in spite of a possible over modeled weakness in the T-34 turret, manuevering to the side or rear was still preferable. I asked one of the T-34 commanders in the tests (really!) about the low likelyhood of ricochets. "No problemo." was the response.

In 5 G. tanks vrs 2 T-34 matchups the T-34s did much worse - The Pz's could "zero in" on the T-34 turrets before more than 1 or 2 Pz's were hit. Usuually. Would you expect 2 T-34s to beat 5 short PzIIIs in a slugging match?

The infamous nigh-invulnerable rampaging T-34s... just T-34s that avoided firing (and thus presenting the turret front) at whatever was firing at them? (Or KV-1s, of course.)

[ February 01, 2003, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for Guderian being a liar, he went over the ground personally, he saw the wrecks, he spoke to the men in command, he spoke to the wounded in hospital afterward. He gave a full report at the time in which he recommended serious changes to German tank designs, which were taken seriously enough they helped set off the upgrade scramble. It is not a matter of CYA in his memoirs. It is confirmed by numerous other contemporary reports, and by contemporary doctrine. He was only the developer of the panzer force, what they hell did he know.

Others have insinuated that it was unusual because the Russians stood off so far. But that is rather hard to square with the facts (1) that after withdrawing onto a PAK front and infantry, the Germans eventually did possess the field, over which Guderian walked (2) that there were dead T-34s about, just not as many as dead Panzers (3) that the tankers told him their Panzers had maneuvered for rear turret shots, something rather hard to do at 1500 yards. And rather unnecessary, if CMBB is to be at all believed. If they tried to, they did so for part of the engagement only, or not entirely successfully.

Bull****, the report Penned by von Lagermann (4th Pz Div commander) and signed off by Guderian speaks of T-34s and KVs opening up at 1000m and winning the long range dual, with the Pz’s then running back through PaK front. The Kamenewo combat resulted in 18 T-34s/KVs (8KVs) destroyed in exchange 10 Pz’s, two 8,8s one 10cm gun and 1 10,5cm howitzer battery. The 88s destroyed 2 Soviet tanks, the 10cm gun destroyed 3 and the 10,5cm battery destroyed 2.

You also conveniently forget that the deployment of 10cm guns and 8,8cm FlaKs was a direct response to earlier headaches with the KV’s (not T-34s) and when speaking of 50m penetrations only he (Lagermann) is referring to the KV tank "Heavy tank".

[ February 01, 2003, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

18 November excerpt of Guderian’s speech to the Special Panzerkommission (that led to the development of the Panther and the up gunning/up armouring of the PIII/IVs).

“The armament of the heavy Russian tank (44 to 52 metric tons) consists of a 76,2mm gun, one MG in front and one MG in the rear of the turret, and one MG in the hull front. The armour consists of a 80mm hull (reinforced in the front) and 100mm turret. The sloped armour causes hits from the 8,8cm FlaK gun to ricochet. They are faster than the Pz.Kpfw III and IV.” (1995 Jentz).

He does not speak about the “Christies” tank (T-34), He does emphasise that the Panzer-Abteilung need Panzers or PaKs capable of penetrating the “Heavy” Russian tanks at ranges where their guns cannot return the favour. He also goes on to emphasise the need for improvements in ground pressure and armour. What he does not speak about is the invulnerability of the T-34.

[ February 01, 2003, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[JasonC]

Tarq - at 5 to 2, the Germans should be winning, yes. How expensively should depend on other factors. With a full echelon larger formation, they should win cheaply, regardless of other factors. At 1 to 1, the Russians should win cheaply. Around 2:1 to 3:2 odds, the result should be close, not necessarily meaning even losses, but the outcome knife-edge and able to go either way.

Other factors - Russians green rather than regular; Germans vets or some mix of vets rather than regular (minor compared to the previous, though); more cover - hills and dead ground, woods and houses - rather than wide open (helps Germans significantly); larger engagement (helps Germans); other arms present (usually helps Germans); initial range (longer helps Russians, but marginally); model of the Pz IIIs (H helps Germans at long initial ranges, Fs are hopeless); German tactic used (closing first should work better than dueling at range).

When most of the other factors are in the Germans' favor, I'd expect 3:2 to suffice. When most are in the Russians' favor, 3:2 won't suffice and 2:1 might not. When I speak of the odds I mean the raw number of tanks, not point odds.

What would I expect to be out of kilter in CMBB? Germans don't need to close so much. Open terrain doesn't hurt them as much. Wins that ought to be clean for the Russians may be expensive instead.

You'd see the biggest difference with green Russians at long range in relatively open terrain facing 50% greater numbers of III Hs. There historically, I'd expect the Germans to be at a disadvantage (not enough odds to win with "hail fire", poor terrain and initial distance for closing tactics). In CMBB, I'd expect them to win with moderate losses.

I hope these are the sorts of questions you were asking.

As an example, I put 9 III Hs, mixed vets and regulars, against 6 green M41 model T34s, open steppe terrain, flat, at about 1000 yards initial range. The map was 1200, and tank to tank starting distances varied from 900 to 1100. The IIIs lost 1 tank and had another shocked, 1 man lost, but recovered by the end. One T-34 withdrew off the map, broken, after being shocked. The other 5 all died.

The last was broken and off in a corner as the only survivor at the start of minute number 4, and was polished off that turn. The only advancing I did was at the end, with 2 tanks moving closer to this non-firing hold-out, but it was KOed before they reached their new firing positions.

This is not hail fire by a plus echelon size, nor is it the closing procedure discussed in the tactical doctrine. It is simply firing faster and more accurately with more shooters, at range, and getting turret hits on them before they get turret hits on you. The real 1941 guys never had it so good, IMO.

[ February 01, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You mean worse or even better in line than the German Combat trials that show the T-34 front turret proof versus KwK 5cm at a 30deg angle?

This?

Pz regt 203 report ... 30 deg ... PIV’s Lang penetrating shermans/T-34 at sub 800m. Pz regt 203 “combat trial” engagement ranges are completely at odds with Pz regt 33 reports that 5cm KwK penetrates T34 Hull/turret side armour at 400m and turret front at 400m.

I did see numerous penetrations, and it didn't take a PIV Lang. What ranges were the 203's tests. Roughly 20% ricochet rate seems to be what Andreas and I are getting at 700-750m, as I'm sure you know from reading subsequent messages. I didn't test at 400m.

Question answered, yes? That was painless.

How about we try backing up a bit? B, how close do you think a "real life" 50L42 would need to be to "routinely" score front turret penetrations on a '41 T34. (Ideally, answer both in % of total hits and % of shots taken.) Now, what's your value for "routinely". Finally, same basic questions, but with regard to how it is in CMBB.

</font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

This is not hail fire by a plus echelon size, nor is it the closing procedure discussed in the tactical doctrine. It is simply firing faster and more accurately with more shooters, at range, and getting turret hits on them before they get turret hits on you. The real 1941 guys never had it so good, IMO.

You mean a doctrine first posited/issued in May 1942 when PIII kurz and lang were fighting T34/42s? The real 1941 guys were fighting in 1941 versus 41 era tanks. Not 1942 era tanks as refered to in the instruction set.

[Tarquelne]

You said 'high chance' of deflection a 15deg oblique hits. The German combat trials which have the T-34 at 30 deg agree with this and state that penatration will not occur at any range with a 30 deg angle of attack.

Thanks much for answering my questions. I've always thought that the key to good two way communication was, well, good two way communication. I fail to understand why you and Jason seem to be argueing at cross purposes so often. Must be because he's "dodging", I guess.

And I thank you for asking for clarification: What I meant was that rounds were reaching the "high chance" of deflection within 15 degrees or less from the sides. From my "doodling" it seemed that Side turret armor = high deflection chance, and front turret within 15 degrees of side = high deflection chance. I'm hoping/assuming it's because the Curved armor model is making a distinction between the shape of the armor near the gun and the shape toward the sides.

The LOS tool will also reflect this, with more accuracy, if with similar vaugness. As you rotate most tanks you can see the Kill (and occasionally Hit) chance alter. With the T-34 you'll often see the kill chance vrs. the side turret and the kill chance vrs. the front near-side armor as the same. (For certain guns at certain ranges.) When I was spinning T-34s it was very common for a 50L42 to have a lower kill chance vrs. that near-side armor than the full-front turret armor. The range was beteen 500-800m, IIRC.

[ February 02, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Tarquelne]

I hope these are the sorts of questions you were asking.

Yep. All the arguing about which German general said what when is interesting, but I'm trying to create some sort of test that'll do a better job of proving or disproving whether or not the game really isn't behaving the way you think it should when examining a firefight rather than raw deflection/penetration chances.

For example, if numerous tank vrs. tank tests _do_ have the combat results you think are historically accurate with CMBB v1.01 then you're probably wrong about the deflection %s... assuming some other not-quite-accurate part of the software model isn't compensating. Or wrong about the comat results, of course. Well, the nicest thing about this forum is that if one's wrong about something someone else _will_ politely bring it to your attention... and occasionally a few people even agree.

It'd be even better if another grog or few either seconded your expected-combat-results or gave a different set of expected results (or a series of AARs) - that we we (or at least me) could "compare and contrast", as we say in high-school English. If CMBB doesn't give results similar to anyone's expectations then, well... I throw up my hands and stop listening to you guys.

As an example, I put 9 III Hs, mixed vets and regulars, against 6 green M41 model T34s, open steppe terrain, flat, at about 1000 yards initial range....

So: Thanks - I'll try to formulate some tests of my own, and try the one above. Or, if I'm really lucky, someone will come along and prove to my satisfaction (who else's am I supposed to go by?) that the above is "bull****", to use a Bastablesism, and I won't have to bother.

[ February 02, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Or, if I'm really lucky, someone will come along and prove to my satisfaction (who else's am I supposed to go by?) that the above is "bull****", to use a Bastablesism, and I won't have to bother. [/QB]

Too use a Tarquleneism back up.

Yes, because again it’s Jason shading it by using the PIII ausf H as representative of the German PIII fleet. The PIII H was a stopgap measure of which their were only 308 built, the lowest number of PIII with the KwK 5cm second only to the last 100 PIII F that were fitted with the 5cm gun instead of the 3,7cm.

It pretty obiovious that you have not been comprehending Jason’s “shading”. Jason has built his argument of T-34 front turret should be impermeable to KwK 5cm (in 1941) on what appears to be 3 pieces of evidence.

1. Pz regt 203 combat trial report: Problematic in two areas, the first that the trial was carried out at the standard 30 deg oblique angle and like many German “combat trials” unduly pessimistic. The second that the combat trial takes place in 1942 versus the up armoured turrets of 42 production T-34s

2. The Anti-T34 document: In this again a instruction set that was issued in 1942 for dealing with 1942 era T-34s

3. The Guderian experience at 1941 Kamenewo aka stopped by the terrible T-34 (or the only bit of argument relevant to 1941): Unfortunately Guderian never wrote the report the 4th Pz Div commander von Lagermann wrote it and Guderian merely signed it and sent it on up to OKH. In the report the mixed Soviet tank force of KV and T-34s started a duel with Pz regt 35 at 1000m, the T-34s and KVs won the firefight handily because the Panzers were unable to close the range. The Panzers only began knocking out T-34s and KV when they closed the range (Sub 500m look at the topo maps) to over run/destroy the PaK front. Of the 18 Soviet tanks destroyed only 7 were attributed to the big towed guns, 2 by Infantry and the balance by Panzers. Lagermann complained of heavy tanks that could only be destroyed at sub 50m except from the rear aka the KV.

Guderian in his speeches and recommendations to the Panzer Kommision sent because of Lagermann’s report, never credits the T-34 as invulnerable from the front or from any angle he hardly mentions the “Christies tank” (T-34) at all. But he does emphasise the Heavy (KV) armour and gun and stresses the need for up armouring and up gunning so that they could kill the (KV) at long range. To put it another way the KV was emphasised by Guderian as the “bogy-man,” the tank that they needed to dominate. The T-34 is not mentioned directly in his opening speech nor his final recommendations except indirectly through recommending that cross country “flotation” of future German tanks needs serious work.

He remains silent over his faulty understanding of German tests taken out of context and his misrepresentation of what Guderian “did” at Kamenewo, instead presenting a non-representative test with PIIIHs. Your continued stated inability to understand the basis of the growling between Jason and I, is well to put it kindly, your problem.