Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

[JasonC]

Yes you can simulate the historical effectiveness of the BR-350B, which became the standard round by mid 1943, with the CMBB T round, made available at a few rounds per vehicle in 1944 only.

If you edit every 1943 scenario by changing the date to 1944, then putting in all Russian 76s, changing a portion of their AP to T equal to the position of the date in 1943 (half in mid summmer, all at the end etc) - and edit any 1944 scenario to all T ammo in place of AP - then you would have a reasonably accurate picture of Russian 76mm effectiveness with current CMBB stats.

You can also edit the date when adding SU-85s in the fall of 1943, to get 1944 ammo for them, to correct their egregious undermodeling in that year. As for 1942 model 45mm, you could get reasonable modeling of their historical performance by just making a third of their AP ammo T ammo instead, regardless of date.

I recommend all of the above to scenario designers. But as it stands, no it is not remotely accurate. They killed these things historically at 500m with standard ammo in mid 1943. Not limited rounds per vehicle in 1944 only etc.

[Bigduke6]

Micky D,

You are entitled to your opinion but:

1. Soviet data on their own weapons doesn't support it.

2. Soviet combat memoirs don't support it.

3. The Soviets didn't sit still and improved the 76.2mm round. German 80mm armor got worse over time.

4. German memoirs supporting a Stug front basically invulnerable to a 76.2mm strike don't exist.

JasonC is quite right that the CMBB solution is better scenario design. Just give the T-34/76 10-20 rounds of tungsten and the game plays out just like WW2. I recommend it, it's really interesting from both sides. The Soviets suddenly have an incentive to zip all over the battlefield, and the Germans are still long-range tough, but they have to think through their KZs.

Insisting on impenetrable Stug fronts and TigerI sides is a crutch, as far as I am concerned. (Not you MickyD, I'm ranting generally here.)

A final point: the basic load of tungsten AP for a T-34/76 was 5 rounds - plenty for a single engagement.

[Jack Carr]

I finally got around to setting up a test for this. I created a scenario in which a single Tiger I was sitting with its side to a slight crest that was approximately 550m away. Behind the crest were 4 T-34/76's, 1 KV-1, 1 SU-85, and 1 KV-85. There were no terrain features other than the crest which I had created in the editor so the map was boring to look at. I played the scenario in head to head mode so that I could keep the Tiger buttoned up and stupid with its side facing the ridge. I often issued orders to the Tiger to rotate and fire smoke towards the side of the map thereby keeping its side facing the ridge.

None of the Russian tanks had tungsten rounds, just regular AP. The results were interesting. Most of the 76mm rounds bounced but a few penetrated. The 85mm faired a bit better at this range but not much. There were many shots fired and I did not count them all but approximately one out of every ten rounds found its way into the Tiger. To be fair, less than 10% of the rounds fired found there way in at 550m.

When I brought the Tiger in so that it was 450m away the penetrations increased slightly for the 76mm's and markedly for the 85mm's.

I wanted to get the most shots that I could for the Russian tankers on the Tiger. When I created the scenario I selected crack crews for the Russians. The Tiger was a Veteran but in retrospect, I should have made it Regular or Green to slow its response time so that it wouldn't turn and face the ridge so quickly.

Anyway, there were penetrations but the percentage of penetrations was small. I think that I may be unlucky as I stated earlier in the thread that I lost Tiger I's to 76mm's on a regular basis. I wasn't embellishing, I'm just not good at CM and probably use the Tiger a little too boldly. But one thing I'm not doing is spreading bull.

I have the scenario that I used if anyone would like a copy of it. The ridge is set up so that you could pull the Tiger tank in another 200m if you wanted to.

My version of CMBB is fully patched.

[ April 17, 2005, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Jack Carr ]

[Jack Carr]

I just tried this test again and the number of penetrations increased. I dropped the Tiger crews experience to conscript to slow its response time. That was the only change I made. Instead of 1 out of every 10 shots penetrating it jumped to 1 out of every 5. The Tiger was quickly knocked out.

[stikkypixie]

Can you tell me which guns penetrated the tiger, might be interesting in future battles.

[JasonC]

Sorry, the fact that a lower hull penetration is physically possible is not the issue. Neutered conscript Tigers standing to be shot have nothing to do with the issues real Russian players face.

I ran the following tests. First set, the time is 1943 July Kursk etc. The Russians have T-34 1943 model late, the Germans have Tiger Is. Firing lanes, 8 to a test, 5 rounds. The Russians are at 500m, unbuttoned, perfectly aligned with their targeted Tiger. The Tigers are 90 degrees to them in the first test, buttoned, given no orders at all.

In the second set of tests, the initial side angle is 10-20 degrees, still darn near perfect. More practical and made little difference. Between them, those give 80 1943 era engagements.

Then I change the date to 1944 and give the Russians half T ammo for their AP load, and reduce the range to 200m. As perfect a kill set up as a Russian can expect.

Here are the results -

Round 1 -

Tigers - 2 dead, 7 immobilized, 1 -1 crew, 30 OK.

T-34s - 37 dead, 1 GD and -1 crew ran away, 2 OK.

Round 2 -

Tigers - 1 dead, 6 immobilized, 2 -1 crew, 31 OK.

T-34s - 39 dead, 1 OK.

Total at 500m without T ammo - 76 dead T-34s, 3 dead Tigers, 13 immobilized Tigers.

This is not the whole engagement. This is *after* getting the doctrinally prescribed sight picture of 500m range and a near perfect side shot at a buttoned vehicle facing the wrong way.

The T-34s got one weak point full penetration of the upper side hull that became a full KO. They had 2 other full penetrations, which still did "no significant damage". They achieved 12 partial penetrations, most of them the lower side hull, a couple the upper or the turret side. One of these resulted in a KO and another was to the same tank after that one. The other 10 did - "no significant damage". The immobilizations came from track hits, which were the most effective.

Next comes round 3, what I tell Russian players they need to expect to tackle Tigers with T-34/76s. 200m flat to the side with T ammo. Is this a deterministic kill? They can certainly penetrate every plate of that tank, with that ammo and range, at the side aspect. But if the first shots don't kill them, that aspect is going to go away rapidly. Even so, the T ammo can penetrate from the front, so close. But this still does not result in a deterministic kill, or even in the likelihood of an even exchange for the ones that aren't killed by the first shot. Far, far from it.

Results at 200m with T ammo, in 40 engagements -

Tigers - 6 KOed (!), 1 GD -1 crew & broken, 1 GD -1 crew, 2GD, 5 immobilized, 4 -1 crew, 21 OK.

T-34s - 30 KOed (!), 10 OK (the ones facing the dead Tigers plus the ones facing the GD ones).

Overall, if the GDs turn into full kills eventually, you trade 3 dead T-34s for 1 dead Tiger and 1 damaged one (half immobilized, half -1 crew). Average. Not for the whole engagement - *after reaching 200m from the side with T ammo and first shot*.

How can this happen? The answer is the first shots hit - these engagements read "92%, fair" in the LOS tool - and they go in, but they don't kill the things. Here are the first round results in those engagements, the 200m ones -

LH pen - NSD

LH pen - KO

T F ric

UH pen - NSD

S T pen - GD

LH pen - NSD

S T pen - GD

miss

gun - NSD

S T pen - KO

S T pen - -1 crew

UH pen - KO

UH pen - GD

UH pen - -1 crew

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

miss

gun - NSD

S T pen - KO

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

LH pen - NSD

Track - immobilized

miss

Track - immobilized

S T pen - GD, -1 crew

UH pen - KO

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

In all, 21 hits on the main body of the tank out of 40 initial shots, fully penetrated but did "no significant damage". 2 gun hits also did "no significant damage". 6 other pens did less than lethal damage. Only 5 were immediate KOs. 92% chance to hit, 40 shots, only 5 immediate kills.

These are not pop guns, they are million Joule plus T ammo at 200 meters. These are not partials, they are full penetrations. But apparently the Tiger is modeled as having a lot of "hit points" - or APCR is neutered in behind armor effect, while APHE is neutered by achieving only partial pens.

However you slice it, no Russian player can afford to trade 5 dead T-34s that were driven well enough to achieve the 500m sight picture of the first test, just to on average immobilize one Tiger. Let alone afford to have 25 T-34s destroyed to kill 1, after driving all 25 that well.

You can more readily afford to trade 3 dead T-34s for 1 dead Tiger and another 1 damaged somewhat, which is the exchange ratio available if you have plenty of T ammo and pop out at them at 200m while they are facing the wrong way. You still are not remotely favored to win a one on one engagement set up that well, as a single tank that achieves that perfect shot is a risk engagement that is likely to fail, not a done deal.

If you want to expect to win the fight, losing less than you kill, you want an entire platoon of T-34s simultaneously shooting the same Tiger at nearly point blank range from at least two angles with T ammo. You can *still* lose that fight - from multiple NSDs as he burns through your tanks - but you are favored.

And if anyone doesn't think this is overmodeling, I've got this bridge...

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Can you tell me which guns penetrated the tiger, might be interesting in future battles.

76mm's on T-34's. Ranges were slightly in excess of 500m.

As I pulled the Tiger in, the frequency of penetrations increased. Please keep in mind that these were side shots.

[JasonC]

I'm somewhat surprised that 3 days after my previous post, this thread seems to have died. I'd think people might be at least slightly interested in what I reported, and what it means for tank killing tactics.

When the chance of a kill after a single full penetration is only 1 out of 6, you can't rely on the initial aspect of the engagement. Because tanks spin their turret over - even a slow one - within 20 seconds, sometimes only 15. Meaning you get one, occasionally two shots out of an initial engagement set up that gives you the edge.

If the kill chance - not just hit chance, but *kill* chance - in 1-2 shots is high, then you can rely on the initial engagement aspect to win you the fight, cleanly. But when it is low - here, I saw 1/8 - you need to break contact again within 15 seconds, or you need multiple shooters within the time the enemy is facing the wrong way, or both.

The point is BAE modeling that requires many hits to accumulate to a kill, reinforces the effect of having some impenetrable aspect or particular plate. And reduces the impact of first shot through ambush skill, or flanking fire achieved via teamwork.

It also suggests that much more detailed information about the typical BAE of various guns against various tanks, is extremely important to tactical engagement decisions. People test penetration ranges heavily, but clearly there is far more to the story. 2/3rds of full pens by a full caliber gun doing NSD is important enough I'd think people would want to know about it.

[YankeeDog]

Well, to reassure you that your work isn't all for naught, your tests are interesting, Jason. I just have nothing in particular to add.

FWIW, my own tactical SOP, derived from play experience rather than detailed testing, closely mirrors your tests -- only engage Tigers w/76m from near-flat side @ 200m or less, even w/ tungsten. Any other engagement situation is to be avoided. This is what your tests confirm.

Personally, when faced w/ Tigers pre-1944, I often will try to distract, rather than kill it -- button it w/ ATRs, keep its fire off infantry by playing peek-a-boo w/ fast, light armored assets, etc. Occasionally, my opponent gets frustrated with all this, and does something rash that gives me a crack at the big cat. But an acutal kill is a lucky break. Mostly, I'm just trying to minimize the effect of the big-point Tiger on the tactical battlefield.

But good stuff. Anyone who wants to be good at playing the Russians 1942-1944 shoudl read this.

Cheers,

YD

[JasonC]

Here is another test of BAE and its impact on tankers trying to beat opponents while they "aren't looking". This time in CMAK, the shooters are Crusaders (thus 2 pdrs) and the targets are short Js. Distance 500m and side aspect, targets buttoned. Note that the J turret is rated as "slow".

The 2 pdr has no difficulting penetrating any plate on the side of the tank at that range. In practice, the front aspect is much more daunting, with side angle and shell broke up ammo failures included. The doctrinal thing, therefore, is to hit them from the side while they aren't looking. These engagements are rated 63%, good in the LOS tool. What happens?

Only the first shot is delivered before the Js turn their turrets. By the time of the second, a turret hit is likely to be front aspect with side angle, and to ricochet as a result. By the time of the third, the Js are shooting back. By the time of the 4th and later, they are presenting front hull aspect as well. If you haven't killed them by then, they are likely to kill you instead, as most of the 2 pdr shots ricochet.

In a sample with 8 one on ones, 4 Js died, 2 Crusaders died, one Crusader was GD and broken and retiring behind its dust cloud. The last lane unresolved would probably become another dead Crusader in the second minutes. Basically, a knife edge coin toss is the likely outcome of this set up - despite the perfect initial conditions.

In the first 3 rounds of fire I got 21 hits with the Crusaders. 6 ricocheted from turret fronts in rounds 2 and 3, and 1 was a gun hit that did NSD. That is 1/3rd of the hits ineffective, because even a slow turret is fast enough to show front armor before the engagement plays out. The other 14 hits were all full penetrations. But 8 out of 14 did NSD. 6 were KO hits, but against only 4 tanks total - the ones already on the clock failed to turn turrets and got hit again etc.

After the first 3 rounds, effectiveness plummeted. A number of the Crusaders were taking hits themselves at this point, so the outgoing fire was less. Many of the hits they were still scoring were overkill against already KOed vehicles. In the lanes with live opponents, most shots were bouncing, and the few that went in did little. More specifically, in rounds 4 through 6 -

17 additional hits were scored. 9 of them ricochet or suffered shell broke up. 1 gun and 2 track hits did NSD. 2 partial penetrations did NSD. One weak point full penetration did NSD. 2 were KO quality full penetration hits, but both were side turret hits on a single tank already on the death clock, that had failed to turn. Net additional damage to the Germans? Zero.

To kill them you have to get them in the first 30 seconds, before they turn. Your chances are highest on the absolute first shot, but poor BAE means no single shot can be counted on to get the job done. You can only expect about one shot in 4 be effective in this match up - better than the 1/6 effective plus 1/6 minor damage in the Tiger example, but not by much.

(And incidentally, a 76mm T round at 200m has a lower BAE full kill chance against a Tiger, than mere 40mm plain AP - at 500m - has against a Pz III!)

What do you need to do about this, knowing that only 1/8, 1/6, 1/4 - in that range - of shots are going to actually be effective, and also knowing the aspect of engagement edge is going to evaporate after at most 3 shots?

Answer - you either need to duplicate those first shot conditions repeatedly, over several turns, while avoiding all the later portions of the engagement (by e.g. a shoot and scoot set up that gets back into cover within about 20 seconds), or you need to bring so many shooters that your overall chance from 1/8 to 1/4 1-3 times, times the number of shooters, is high.

Here are some approximate expectations taking on the IIIJs with Crusaders, and the Tigers with T-34s at 200m with T ammo, as you increase the number of attackers with a good initial sight picture. These are the chances of killing it before it starts killing you - if you have enough tanks, you might still get it after it gets one of you etc.

# of Crusaders vs. one IIIJ, initial side

1 - 44-51%

2 - 68-76%

3 - 82-88%

# of T-34s vs. one Tiger, initial side, T ammo

1 - 23-28%

2 - 41-49%

3 - 55-63%

4 - 66-74%

Clean kill chance with multiple shooters.

These are rough estimates based on cumulative probabilities, take from the single vehicle match ups. YMMV. They are enough to show how important it can be to fight by whole platoons, if you expect to get anything out of a fleeting orientation advantage, given the poor BAE of single hits.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

4. German memoirs supporting a Stug front basically invulnerable to a 76.2mm strike don't exist.

This has more to do with the fact that portions of the Stug front had 50mm armour, while BFC models the Stugs as all 80mm front.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'm somewhat surprised that 3 days after my previous post, this thread seems to have died. I'd think people might be at least slightly interested in what I reported, and what it means for tank killing tactics.

Perhaps it's because this has been discussed since the game was released 3 years ago and there is nothing new here that we didn't already know?

Or, atleast the members that's paid a bit attention. Also, from playing the game, people would not exactly be surprised by the results.

Persitency is well and good, but I think this dead horse has been flogged truly enough.

[JasonC]

Panzer 76 - to prove it, you have only to point to the previous forum post that commented on the fact and its tactical significance. No, the reason the usual crowd has become chirping crickets, is they know the modeled result is off, but like blowing up T-34s without working.

I'm still waiting for some complete fool to step up and defend 5/6 non kills for full penetrations at point blank by T rounds of over a million joules. Then I can ask them for the photos of the tanks with 10 3 inch holes in them still fighting, that it predicts.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Panzer 76 - to prove it, you have only to point to the previous forum post that commented on the fact and its tactical significance. No, the reason the usual crowd has become chirping crickets, is they know the modeled result is off, but like blowing up T-34s without working.

I'm still waiting for some complete fool to step up and defend 5/6 non kills for full penetrations at point blank by T rounds of over a million joules. Then I can ask them for the photos of the tanks with 10 3 inch holes in them still fighting, that it predicts.

I dunno why you insist on harping on this theme when you know that nothing will be done about it and you had these discussions before. I think you'll have to wait for someone to argue with you AGAIN over the issue of undermodeling the russian guns, because they might be bored of it. You won't change their view, and they won't change yours. And BFC won't patch this game either, so there ya go. But since you asked, here are a few, and I'm sure there are more.

Linky

Linky 2

Linky 3

Tiger

Tiger 2

Etc etc etc

As for their "tactical significance", I would think that it would be pretty plain obvious. You can't kill a Tiger from X m with a Y gun. Ok, so what does that mean? You don't have to be Einstein to figure that out.

[JasonC]

Panzer 76 - I see, so the issue is lack of reading comprehension, or eyes glazing over at the overall context of the argument.

The new information is about *behind armor effect*, not penetrations. Which is not an issue for Russian guns only. It is of great tactical importance when an engagement depends on an initial side aspect shot.

A side aspect will only last about 20 seconds, with the turret aligning even faster than that, if the targeted vehicle has one. Low BAE per round means numerous full penetrations are required to get a reasonable chance of a kill.

A single shooter cannot get numerous full penetrations in such a short period of time, even if it can penetrate every plate on the targeted vehicle.

Which you won't find disucssed in a single one of the threads you linked.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The new information is about *behind armor effect*, not penetrations. Which is not an issue for Russian guns only. It is of great tactical importance when an engagement depends on an initial side aspect shot.

The topic of this thread was russian guns penetration ability against German armour, specifically the Tigers armour. Perhaps you now feel that it's about behind armour effect.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is of great tactical importance when an engagement depends on an initial side aspect shot.

How so? What would you do differently? And would you not already have a grasp about the BHA after playing the game for copious amounts of time?

[JasonC]

Use whole platoons when you need a side shot to kill. One tank can't be relied on, because you only get 1-2 hits and that few rarely kills.

Rely more on high powered shooters like SU-152, 57mm ATG, less on flanking methods.

Rely more on other expedients like AT mines and air.

I have already been doing the second two, and I've considered side shot flank attempts marginal. The new bit is that one needs a platoon for any side aspect engagement, which is not a Tiger only lesson but extends to Panthers, Brits in N.A., etc.

[walpurgis nacht]

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.

Run an actual test, or better yet do the elementary math in your head and you will see the rough penetration range he posted was correct.

[JasonC]

LH pen - NSD

LH pen - KO

T F ric

UH pen - NSD

S T pen - GD

LH pen - NSD

S T pen - GD

miss

gun - NSD

S T pen - KO

S T pen - -1 crew

UH pen - KO

UH pen - GD

UH pen - -1 crew

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

miss

gun - NSD

S T pen - KO

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

LH pen - NSD

Track - immobilized

miss

Track - immobilized

S T pen - GD, -1 crew

UH pen - KO

UH pen - NSD

UH pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

S T pen - NSD

Try reading the thread. Thanks.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Try reading the thread. Thanks.

Because you shoot and miss doesn't mean something cannot penetrate. You said the 76 has to be 100m distance or less to kill a tiger from the flank. That is just flat wrong, so stop misleading people here to reinforce your whinning. The truth is it can pentrate out closer to 1000m than 100 with a lower hull flank shot, and no amount of whinning on your part will change that fact.

45mmL66 can even penetrate the lower hull flank out to 350m.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Sorry, the fact that a lower hull penetration is physically possible is not the issue. Neutered conscript Tigers standing to be shot have nothing to do with the issues real Russian players face...

I disagree. According to the early posts in the thread, it was the issue.

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.

--------------------------------------------------

The tests that I ran AND the tests that you ran prove that losses are possible.

I go back to my original statement, I lose Tigers and Stugs to T-34 76.2mm's all the time.

[JasonC]

Walpurgis, I did not shoot and miss. I did not fail to penetrate every time at 500m. But I did see 25 T-34s die to every Tiger than died, and 5 T-34s die to every Tiger that was even hurt, when engaging at 500m from the side against a buttoned Tiger, with ordinary AP. You can hit, and occasionally penetrate, and still lose 24 out of 25 times, even when you have the drop on them. Not odds anyone can afford.

The reason is, the number of successful full penetrations it typically takes to get an actual kill, is not 1-2. And the amount of time an initial side aspect lasts before turrets align and the return fires starts arriving, is 2-3 shots at best.

If you initially engage with ammo and range that can get through the front aspect, then you still aren't favored, but the chances are much better, and high enough that using 2-3 tanks can boost it to better than even. If, instead, your only shot chances are the first 2, then you aren't going to kill the things and they are going to kill you.

Notice, I did not say "you aren't going to hit the things" - you will. You will occasionally - though with plain AP at 500m, rarely - penetrate them, usually partially. But the BAE of occasional partial penetration for 1-2 shots, has a very small chance of actually killing one. And when it doesn't, it kills you instead.

In practice, if you try driving your T-34/76s with plain AP to 500m from the side of buttoned Tigers to take them out, you will leave a blazing trail of dead T-34s and an occasional immobilized Tiger. It is bad advice as a way of fighting them. The main game mechanics reason is BAE modeling, if the cause matters. If on the other hand you attack them with T ammo close, you will still lose T-34s but you will also kill Tigers - particularly if you use more than one T-34 at a time, with T ammo and those ranges.

[Bigduke6]

JackC,

Yes I did tests. Lots of them. I have all the patches. What's more, I read Russian and German and nowhere, I repeat nowhere, have I found historical evidence to show the Soviet 76.2mm was as weak as it is in CMBB.

I am not saying there is absolutely no chance of a penetration at the engagements and ranges I am talking about. Of course there is. CMBB builds in variablity, and that variablity allows the Soviet 76.2mm gun to penetrate, at medium ranges and lower, the side of Tiger I, and the front of Stuermgeschuetz on rare occasions.

Rare occasions is not what happened in real life. In real life that weapon gave reliable penetration and destruction at those ranges and aspects. The lower the range, the higher chance of a kill. Bagramian ordered the biggest tank charge in history at Kursk on grounds the Soviet 76.2mm gun could absolutely reliably penetrate the sides of Tiger I at ranges of 300mm or less.

JasonC has demonstrated very well, I think, that had real-life Kursk been fought in CMBB, every one in Russia would be speaking German, as the Germans would have annihilated 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk. A 25-1 exchange rate is pretty piss-poor - and remember JasonC modeled that with every T-34 opening fire first, at the side of the Tiger, at close range.

85mm is the same deal. In real life it was pretty durn effective out to a klick against TigerI and Panther. In CMBB you better be at 500m. and lower.

CMBB - which remains a terrific game and I really enjoy it - also fails to model armor weakening under cumulative hits. What's more it makes weaker morale crews automatically avoid combat with tougher tanks, LOS is a lot longer than on most battlefields (smoke, fog, dust), and the engine distributes hits randomly, when historically what Allied tankers did when up against a Tiger or a Panther was to fire like crazy at the running gear, which would decrease the overall chance of a hit somewhat, but increase the chance of the hit doing something.

Add into this a rough 10 - 15 weaker performance by Soviet rounds in CMBB, than in real life, and you get a game stacked against the side using massed fires, hoping for immobility hits, and trying to engage at close range. The game is stacked in favor, more than in real life, of the side preferring stand-off tactics and hopefully one-to-one engagements.

As a result of this slant, CMBB German Tigers, Panthers, and Stuermgeschuetzes often are practically invulnerable in situations they were quite vulnerable in real life.

The solution is to play scenarios taking that into account, and the easiest way to design a scenario giving the Soviets AP performance like it was during the war is to simply give Soviet tanks lots of Tungsten rounds. Real simple.

But if a person must play with Ueber-cats then I say power to him. Some children are so spoiled, they throw fits if they don't get their favorite toys.

This is not whining. This is a basic problem with the modeling of the most common Soviet anti-tank weapon of the war.

[JasonC]

The miscommunication seems to stem from each side addressing a different question. To each side it then looks like the other is engaging straw men. Wal and Jack are narrowly addressing the question, can a CMBB 76mm physically penetrate a Tiger side occasionally, answer yes. If invulnerability is the criterion that seems like "the Tiger can be killed, what's the problem?" BigDuke and I are addressing the question, can a Russian CMBB player in practice use the historical tactic of closing and flanking, to kill Tigers with T-34s. And the answer is, if he is suicidal or it is 1944 and he has T ammo as well as numbers and the terrain to get close.

The main reason the two are different is that the ability to penetrate occasionally and partially does not result in the ability to use the historical tactics. Wal and Jack have noticed the penetrations and recall having lost Tigers to it, and have driven the T-34s and occasionally killed Tigers with them. So have I. But I've also lost enough T-34s trying it that I know it is a losing proposition and the historical tactic is unsound in CMBB. And in the tests I conducted for this thread, I zeroed in on why.

The engagement time is very limited. Aspect advantage is a fleeting thing. It gets you a couple of shots. And a couple of shots will turn into kills with any frequency, only if a couple of hits regularly kill. If it were just pen chance, that would be hard but doable. But it isn't, it is pen chance combined with very low BAE even for large caliber rounds. Low BAE is designed to make it necessary to penetrate the same tank repeatedly, to actually get a kill, most of the time. And repeated penetrations simply do not happen in narrow time windows - when the penetration chance is nearly automatic, it is still difficult, and when it is low, it is statistically so unlikely you can't afford the losses.

We don't see the other guy's BAE results in ordinary fights. All those NSDs I got, are usually hidden behind the fog of war - except in hotseat tests. When a tank is killed by 5 penetrations in a row, one is not told whether it was the last or the first that did it. BAE is simply one of the least observable variables in ordinary CM play. You can get a sense of the outcomes, from the overall engagement result.

But partitioning the failures into poor shooting luck (rare), failure to penetrate (common in these match ups but not always), and failure to kill (much more common that my prior expectation - 1/6 where I'd have expected 2/3) is not something one readily accumulate just from play, as opposed to testing.

I know from experience that you can't flank and close, because the cost is prohibitive in dead T-34s even with driving good enough to get the perfect initial sight picture. Not that I've never done it, I have. Wal and Jack apparently misunderstand this point continually, thinking I must be not testing or doing something wrong since they see it as possible. Possible isn't enough to use a tactic. One chance in 25 of winning is not enough to try something whose downside is a lost tank.

But it was not clear to me before the tests I ran for this thread, just how large a portion of that success ratio I'd observed in practice, was due to low BAE, not low penetration. 3 full pens and 13 partials in my 500m tests resulted in all of 3 dead Tigers, and the ratio of pens to kills was even lower with the T ammo (though of course the pens were much higher). Fighting a 5 to 1 BAE headwind with 2 shots per engagement, you can't afford a 5 to 1 no pen chance as well. You can afford one of the two, if you've got a platoon. In practice you can't afford both of them.