Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

[Xipe66]

I was reading this report, Swinging the Sledgehammer: The combat effectiveness of german heavy tank battalions in WWII (pdf) and throughout it states that VERY FEW Tigers were disabled in combat at all. A russian commander is quoted reporting the ONLY way to penetrate it was to flank and get in close (I seem to remember someone saying that wasn't a historical tactic?) and MOST of the Tigers lost were destroyed by its own crews.

Would be interesting to hear more comments on this after the propagents of undermodelled russian weapons visavi Tigers have read the report linked above.

Just reading it hints at how powerful it was - it even states that russian crews mostly aimed for its guns and tracks, cause the rest of the tank more or less invulnerable (at the time around Kursk, july 1943).

So - the russian weapon effectiveness and the tactics you need to employ in the game (hit a gun, or flank it up close) seems historically accurate?

My point: However undermodelled the russian weapons might be against other german AFV:s what I can see from comparing the game to this report it seems quite historical.

[ April 07, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[YankeeDog]

I've never heard that much griping about the strength of the Tiger's armor, at least vs. the Zis-5.

I certainly don't think anybody's arguing that the Russian 76mm should be able to penetrate the Tiger's armor from any aspect at greater than close range. There may be some people who feel that at very close ranges (sub-300m or so), the ability of the Zis-3 to penetrate the Tiger side armor is a bit undermodeled. Right now, regular Russian 76mm APBC basically doesn't penetrate a Tiger's side armor, except for the 60mm lower hull, *at all*, even point blank. The Tungsten shells have a decent chance sub-500m if they get a flat shot.

I think some feel that regular Russian AP should perhaps to a bit better, so it might have some chance to penetrate the 80mm sides if the range gets sub-200m or so, but no more than that. So it's a matter of a few millimeters.

Most of the complaining about Russian Gun undermodeling has been WRT other AFVs, and especially the 80mm StuG front. Remember, you can't compare the Tiger's 80mm sides to the StuG's 80mm front -- they're different kinds of armor -- so it's apples to oranges.

Cheers,

YD

[MikeyD]

Yes, a Tiger is not a Stug - though in the game Stugs seem to be just about as invulnerable as Tigers vs 76.2mm guns from the front.

Actually, I can't get too heated up over this debate. It seems every time I purchase a Ferdinand it gets bogged, every time i purchase a Tiger it gets a 'gun hit', every time I purchase a Panther the commander goes blind while he's being flanked, and when I purchase a Stug its so sloooow to pivot that it usually gets nailed with a side shot! When playing against me, those undermodelled Russian guns seem to do just fine

[Bigduke6]

I would call CMBB's inaccuracy regarding Soviet AP capabilities not just the issue of a few millimeters, but basic errors that often skew battle tactics badly.

The TigerI really was invulnerable in some aspects to Soviet basic AP munitions. But not to the degree of CMBB.

The Soviets figured you had to get within 200 m. of a Tiger for a sure flank shot with the 76.2mm gun, and at 400m. or more you were rolling dice loaded pretty much against you.

When the 85mm weapon started getting fielded it was considered reliable against the TigerI front out to maybe 500m, and when the better ammo came out maybe that number went up to 700m - 800m.

Meaning, that at ranges of about 800m and up, in RL Tiger had a fair chance of duking it out with a Soviet medium tank and not getting hurt. Not surprisingly, the RL Germans tried to use Tigers to shoot at Soviet tanks from about 1200 - 800 meters.

That was the reality.

CMBB makes the TigerI invulnerable to 76.2 period, and pretty much invulnerable to 85mm at ranges of 500m and up.

Roughly, it would be like making M4 Sherman unable to get through the side of a TigerI in CMAK, and making the Easy8 unable to punch through TigerI's front at ranges over 500m. It would be hard to find many WW2 wargamers calling that a small issue.

Undergunning the overwhelming majority of Soviet medium tanks, for every scenario depicted by CMBB from 1942-45 inclusive, against the Germans' best AT weapon is not what I would call a little mistake.

[gautrek]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Yes, a Tiger is not a Stug - though in the game Stugs seem to be just about as invulnerable as Tigers vs 76.2mm guns from the front.

Actually, I can't get too heated up over this debate. It seems every time I purchase a Ferdinand it gets bogged, every time i purchase a Tiger it gets a 'gun hit', every time I purchase a Panther the commander goes blind while he's being flanked, and when I purchase a Stug its so sloooow to pivot that it usually gets nailed with a side shot! When playing against me, those undermodelled Russian guns seem to do just fine

Oh and i thought it was just me.

[Redwolf]

The late 76mm T-34 gun could do the 80mm side armor at about 500m. Scratch a few more meters because it was usually 82mm or even a little more.

Insofar the original report is accurate for a time but if course it is utter bull**** that it wants to imply that this was the situation all war long. The 85mm, 100mm and 122mm guns, and the 152mm AP shot, are not nice to kitties at -surprise- more than 500m.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Yes, a Tiger is not a Stug - though in the game Stugs seem to be just about as invulnerable as Tigers vs 76.2mm guns from the front.

Actually, I can't get too heated up over this debate. It seems every time I purchase a Ferdinand it gets bogged, every time i purchase a Tiger it gets a 'gun hit', every time I purchase a Panther the commander goes blind while he's being flanked, and when I purchase a Stug its so sloooow to pivot that it usually gets nailed with a side shot! When playing against me, those undermodelled Russian guns seem to do just fine

I must be in the same cult that you are. I lose Stugs and Tigers to T-34-76's on a regular basis playing against the AI. But then again, I stink at this game. I love it, but I stink at it.

I always like to go back to the historical aspect/context of the battles. When I play a QB and I am playing the Germans, and I pick a Tiger, I make sure the Soviets have 12-15 tanks to go against my Tiger. If you are playing scenarios with the Russians and have three T-34's against one Tiger...uhhhh...yeah, you are going to get your head handed to you. Remember, when that Tiger gets knocked out, historically it didn't get replaced with another Tiger. It got replaced by a grenadier with a panzerfaust. When the Russians lost a T-34, it was replaced by a brand new tank, maybe even a better tank. Russian losses never bother me. If anything is overmodeled in the game its the way the score is tabulated when taking losses into account for the Russian player. As the Russian player, if I start out the scenario with 20 T-34's and gain my objectives but end up with two surviving tanks, I WON! Especially in light of the fact that every tank I lost will be replaced. Ditto for the infantry. The same can't be said for the German player.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

CMBB makes the TigerI invulnerable to 76.2 period, and pretty much invulnerable to 85mm at ranges of 500m and up.

Have you applied the patches? I have lost Tigers to 85mm's at ranges greater than 500m and to 76.2's from the side at 500m and closer.

If its vulnerable Tiger's you're looking for, play CMBO. I used to lose Tiger tanks to Stuart 37mm's frontally at 300m. All of a sudden that little Stuart would catch sight of the Tiger and start to back off at speed, popping rounds as it went and sure as hell - POP! Penetration at weak point - scratch one Tiger.

[MikeyD]

"...lose Tiger tanks to Stuart 37mm's frontally"

Yeh, they were especially effective against my King Tigers!

I recall awhile ago someone posted a combat account that had a 37mm gun Greyhound AC during the Bulge battes sneaking up to the tail of a Tiger at night on a road and knocking it out with a shot through the rear at point-blank! I tried doing the same in CMAK. It didn't work.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"...lose Tiger tanks to Stuart 37mm's frontally"

Yeh, they were especially effective against my King Tigers!

I recall awhile ago someone posted a combat account that had a 37mm gun Greyhound AC during the Bulge battes sneaking up to the tail of a Tiger at night on a road and knocking it out with a shot through the rear at point-blank! I tried doing the same in CMAK. It didn't work.

That's in McDonald's "A Time for Trumpets," except it was a Panther from the side. And the AC (or Stuart, I don't remember, but it had a 37mm gun) wasn't actually sneaking (being sane); he came cross country to a road, not expecting any Germans, and found a Panther there...

[SgtMuhammed]

The crew of the armored car was even more surprised than the crew of the Panther.

I have regularly destroyed Tigers from the flank using historic Soviet tactics. I have also suffered about historic losses, 4 or 5 to one, in doing so. The only gripe I have is that in too many battles the designers feel the need to give the Tiger numerical parity with the 34's.

[DEY]

I can remember having that tiger in the Italian battle in the cmak demo killed at least once by a stuart frontally, the stuart was on that hill and the tiger was in the backend of the village, that would have been about 300 meter shot.

It's just so hard to believe that a little dinky toy gun could be that deadly.

But from what I understand though is that the allied later war ammo was deadly on flat vertical angled armor but had problems penetrating sloped angled armor, it was very prone to glance off any thing set at a sloped angle.

Also from what I understand is that the german blunt nose ammo was far more deadly on sloped armor.

[MikeyD]

"...except it was a Panther from the side."

Nope. Different story. Mine had a Greyhound by the side of the road at night. Tiger roars passes it on the road without seeing it. Greyhound guns it engine, races up behind it. Before the Germans know it there they put a hole in its tail from just feet away, killing the engine.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"...except it was a Panther from the side."

Nope. Different story. Mine had a Greyhound by the side of the road at night. Tiger roars passes it on the road without seeing it. Greyhound guns it engine, races up behind it. Before the Germans know it there they put a hole in its tail from just feet away, killing the engine.

Interesting - I think the Panther action in Macdonald may have been at night, but the men in the Stuart (I'm pretty certain it was a Stuart) definitely weren't stalking it.

[JasonC]

"76.2's from the side at 500m and closer."

Malarky. Try 100m with zero side angle. Maybe 200m with T ammo. It has not been corrected by any patch, stop spreading bull.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"76.2's from the side at 500m and closer."

Malarky. Try 100m with zero side angle. Maybe 200m with T ammo. It has not been corrected by any patch, stop spreading bull.

I'll double check this tonight. It should be fun to set this up. I'll design a scenario that will put the T-34/76's in a great position to whack the Tiger from the side. I will let you know how it turns out.

Thanks

[jacobs_ladder2]

Another interesting topic is the effectiveness of the Russian KV series. According to what I have read, these vehicles were not nearly as invulnerable as they are reputed to be. Similar to the reputation of the Tiger in the later war, the KV has enjoyed some bolstering, shall we say, which may or may not reflect its reality.

Cheers

Paul

[MikeyD]

Apparently KVs were effective enough - IF they could survive the trip to the front and be kept running, and be supplied with enough petrol... and weren't resting on an incline!

No top-side commander's hatch was a giant pain, though. The commander was in the gunnner's seat far away from the roof hatch, unlike in the game.

[Xipe66]

On battlefield.ru under the development history of the KV-1S they offer this appraisal of the KV-1:

According to one of the KV-1 designers: "During 1942 we were still in need of a reliable heavy tank. That's why we were defeated in Crimea and at Kharkov. The KV-1 completely discredited the concept of a heavy tank."

[Zwollo2003]

Gents,

It looks like everybody in this thread (and several previous ones on the same subject) agrees that the StuGs with 80mm front should be vulnerable to the Soviet 76.2mm up to 500m and is too strong as currently modeled in the game.

However, there is at least some information/opinions floating around which support the calculations of the good folks at Battlefront.

For example Thomas Jentz, who is by all accounts a very solid researcher, has repeatedly claimed that 80mm front Stugs and PzIVs were invulnerable to Soviet 76mm at normal combat ranges (reference - Osprey books "Sturmgeschuetz III and IV 1942 -45" and "Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G, H and J 1942-45", pp. 21 and 20, respectively; when talking about Sherman's 75mm by invulnerability at normal combat ranges Jentz meant no penetration after 100mm; I assume that with regard to the 76.2 he probably meant a similar performance).

Another example: Niklas Zetterling, "Kursk 1943. A statistical analysis".While not a tank data book per se, it is a very well researched piece. Penetration tables at p. 213 show a weak penetration chance by 76.2 against PzIV front at around 250 m. Penetration estimates at p.213 credit the 76.2 mm. with 61mm.penetration only.

And if you look for sources giving penetration estimates rather than direct comparisons vs. PzIV armour, there is even more data suggesting that 76mm could punch through 80mm only at a much closer distance than 500m. If you look at the best sources available on the Internet,www.battlefield.ru and Guns vs Ammo they both show that 80mm penetration is reached at around 100m mark, not further. This is confirmed by the Russian's own estimates I have seen outside the Internet (my source here is "Entsyklopedia Otechestvoii Artillerii").

Exception to that is the APCR (BR 354P) which should indeed penetrate out to 500 m. But they seem to be capable of doing so in the game, the problem seems more like their availability.

So, summing up this rather long rant, I think there is a substantial amount of evidence (or at least some evidence) supporting the thesis that German 80mm fronts were proof against 76.2 Soviet guns beyond a very short range (Tungsten excepted). I am actually a little surprised that everyone here agrees otherwise. Having 80 mm Stugs and PzIV invulnerable to T-34s frontally is an attractive hypotesis in one aspect, namely it can explain some of the Germans' more lopsided exchange ratios vs the Soviets (ref. Prokhorovka - over 6:1 in tank losses!)and generally very good performance of the Stugs. It is difficult to explain otherwise, unless you subscribe to the theory that (1) all Germs were uebermenschen or (2) all Sovs were complete oafs - neither of which I believe. Replicating LSSAH's performance at Prokhorovka is difficult enough in CMBB. I don't see how you could do it without significant edge in equipment.

Cheers,

Zwolo

[JasonC]

It is nonsense supported by not a single tactical account and contradicted by both sides in their contemporary training documents.

"The life of an assault artilleryman is short but full of interest". Signal magazine. Not a word about invulnerable front plates.

Accounts by StuG aces stress a low profile, use of camo, excellent optics, an accurate gun, and getting the first hit. Not a word about invulnerable front plates.

A German explanation of the unsuitability of the StuH for anti tank work states in relevant part, since the heat ammo was only accurate to about 500m, and the armor of assault gun offered no protection from Russian tank guns at that range, the StuH was unsuitable for AT use.

The Russian training documents sold on this site explain the ranges to open up at various targets with Russian 76mm. 600m is the range they estimate as effective.

As for one day at Kursk, the technical explanation is simply not available, it makes no sense. 1SS reports 4 Tigers and 10 StuGs operational on the 11th. Not enough to make more than a token difference in the fighting.

If you track vehicles sent into repair, you get the following story for 1SS in two weeks at Kursk.

Tigers 12 start, 13 KOed, only 1 TWO.

Pz IVs 89 start or added, 75 KOed, only 9 TWO.

StuGs 34 start, 39 KOed, only 3 TWO.

Marders 23 start or added, 10 KOed, 5 TWO.

All are lethal weapons against T-34s - and a quarter to a third of the tanks they were facing were T-70s. But it wasn't just tanks. There were also -

88mm Flak 12 start, 4 KO, none TWO.

75mm PAK 22 start or added, 13 KO, 9 TWO.

50mm PAK 37 start, 12 KO.

One might discount the last as not particularly lethal to T-34s - but if so, one also ought to back out the dead T-70s from the other side's loss totals. However you slice it, you get 150 major AT weapons KOed out of a little under 200 - but only about 1 out of 6 of their KOs become total write offs. And there is your loss ratio.

If armor were the explanation the Marders would be toast. They aren't. A slightly higher rate of TWO sure, but a lower loss rate. Because they are just used less. So were the StuGs in the most famous bit of the battle, the 12th. We can tell, because there were 10 operational on the 11th and 20 operational on the 13th, and there is no way it went up because 76mm rounds repaired assault guns they bounced off of. No, they were LOB that day, in all likelihood, the better to have a full unit of them on the 13th.

The Germans conquered Europe in Pz IIs and Panzer IIIs with short 50s. It was not a technological dominance, it was tactics, combined arms, etc. At Kursk they also had a large quality edge - a Pz IV long is a vastly better tank than a T-34 in pure gun armor terms, and killing at 2-3 times the distance is by no means a negligible advantage in armored combat.

If you can't do it, maybe you are stupid. Maybe they were good. Maybe, we all mash our toys together far more recklessly than anybody did in the real deal. The Germans brought several thousand tanks to Kursk, and as many major AT weapons in other forms. They fought violently for two weeks, and another month if you count the Russian counterattacks. The Russians lost thousands of tanks in that period. Maybe even as high as 2 per superior German AFV and 1 per other major AT weapon system. In a month and a half.

The thing to wonder about while playing CM is how anybody walked off such battlefields, and why the war wasn't over in one week. Not "how the Germans did it, unless they were invulnerable". They weren't invulnerable, they did all the bits that actually stand out as successes before their own tanks were even as good as their enemies, and after they had better ones they were vulnerable enough to lose the war in their superior tanks. Tank technical superiority just has nothing to do with operational outcomes. Those are decided by other factors, far larger ones.

It is a failed thesis chasing anecdotes trying to explain to incredulous spectators long after the event what might have been going on. Contradicted by all the contemporary evidence and testimony of the participants. And not hanging together logically even as a post hoc attempted explanation.

The Russian 76mm should penetrate 80mm at 500m. German 75s are penetrating T-34s at 3 times that range, and that is plenty. There is nothing wrong with a Pz IV for anybody who can drive - as well as any Allied tanker has to in CM - let alone as well as real German tankers did in the east.

[Bigduke6]

Zwollo2003,

First, the Russian Battlefield specifically points out at the top of its armor penetration tables that direct comparison of its numbers with German penetration tables is apples and oranges.

Russians tested against harder metal, used a stricter definition of penetration than the Germans, and at times used conservative algorithms to predict penetration. These factors skew downward any penetration tables produced by Soviets, if you compare them to the Germans'.

My opinion, the downward skew is about 15 per cent, i.e., if Soviet AP weapons were 15 per cent more powerful in CMBB, they would perform more or less like they did in real life.

Second, I don't know what numbers you're looking at on Russian Battlefield. The Russian-language penetration numbers that I am looking at indicate a 76,2mm AP round should have a chance of overcoming 80mm armor starting at something like 500, and almost certainly will overcome that armor at around 250 meters.

The power of the 76.2 gun goes up over time as its round improves but the thickness and quality of MKIV, Stuermgeschuetz, and Tiger armor does not.

Here is the Russian-language link on the ZiS-5 tank gun:

www.battlefield.ru/armaments/zis5_r.html

The sources cited are:

Entsiklopedia Otechesvennoi Arillerii - A. Shirokopad, 2000

Artillerseyskoe vooruzhenie sovetskikh tankov 1940-1945, Armada-Vertikal, No 4., 1999

I know the former work and its source is actual test data.

Further, I see Jentz and Zetterling as suspect. Their assertation German 80mm armor was invulnerable to the Soviet 76.2 gun is mathematical and simplistic. They simply look at numbers on a table under the 80mm column and make a conclusion divorced of historical context.

Second, Jentz and Zetterling and their like produce zero I repeat zero evidence the fronts of Stuermgeschuetz and the sides of Tiger were invulnerable to ZiS-5.

Here is a limited list of Soviet armor commanders that wrote memoirs and all effectively recorded the following: at medium ranges and lower T-34/76 would defeat any pre-Panther medium German tank at pretty much any aspect. That same 76.2mm gun could not penetrate Tiger frontally, but certainly could do so from flank or rear at 200-300 m. and less.

I remind you, these were guys who actually commanded the Red Army tanks: Babazhian, Bagramian, Batov, Leliushenko, Katiukov, Moskalenko, Rokkosovsky, etc. etc. They were there. Jentz and Zitterling were not.

JasonC and others have done I think a pretty good job of making this point from the German archival point of view: An account of a Stuermgeschuetz frontally-invulnerable to 76.2mm Soviet AP doesn't exist. Only in CMBB. Not in history, not in accounts by actual participants, not in real life. Only CMBB.

In a friendly sort of way, I believe the "weight of evidence" is overwhelmingly against what you are arguing.

See the last pages of thread "Why do Soviet tanks get better when Germans capture them"

[DEY]

I just run a little test for the hell of it.

Placed an Early Tiger in the middle of a map facing in an easternly direction, placed four T34-m43's in each corner.

The two front corner T34's where at a distance of 528 and 502 meters from the Tiger, the two rear corner T34's where at 516 and 560 meters from the Tiger.

The T34's where given only Tungsten AT ammo.

As would be expected the two eastern T34's where killed, but as the Tiger was killing them the two rear T34's where getting penetrations on the Tiger and as the Tiger was turning around to face the rear T34 that was at the 516 meter distance from the Tiger, it left it's side wide open to the other rear corner T34 at the 560 meter distance which achieved several penetrations on it finally killing the Tiger as it tried to turn around to face it after the other T34 at 516 meters backed off the map.

[DEY]

Even more for the hell of it I tried that test without Tungsten, but only regular AT ammo.

The tactic for the russians seemed to be to shoot at the Tiger with mostly HE ammo though with a odd AP round here and there.

The Tiger killed one of the front corner T34's and was turning around to face that rear T34 at the 560 meter distance as it was turning it was immoblized from the HE being fired at it and was setting with it's side exposed to the other front corner T34 at 528 meters away and the rear corner T34 at 560 meters away.

There was a penetration on the Tiger by I believe from that 560 meter away rear corner T34.

The Tiger crew abandoned the tank.

[MikeyD]

"...agrees that the StuGs with 80mm front should be vulnerable to the Soviet 76.2mm"

80mm thickness was chosen by the Grmans specifically to counter the T34's guns so its no surprise it can stop a 76.2mm AP round. What isn't well modeled in the game is the inefficient shape of the Stug.

There's a shallow near-vertical strip of armor at the top of the hull front that looks like it would catch any rounds. There's the slightly raised commander's station that had to be reinforced after hard combat experience. There's the driver's visor that would be vulnerable to attack.

In CMBO KTs would often receive absurd "turret front penetration at weak point" K.O.s. I think T34-proof 80mm armor's okay on Stugs, but the Stug should be getting more random 'weak point' penetrations than it is.