Succeeding with Soviet AFVs

[walpurgis nacht]

German AFVs are generally superior to Russian AFVs after 1941. There are hundreds of essential details necessary to consider when deciding how to attack them: terrain, experience, weather, ground conditions, etc. (i.e., In late '42 the Tiger is *god* defending in open terrain, but if it's raining, foggy, and a heavy trees map, she is not much more useful than a Panzer IVG.)

My general approach to defeating the uber-armor is as follows:

Conditions: January 1942, overcast, mid-day, rural, medium settings. 3 T-34s(with radio) attacking 1 StugF8. Imagine no infantry or AT-guns could possibly be involved.

I move the T-34s as close as possible to the Stug staying out of LOS. Once I'm there (let's say 200 meters away) the T-34s "pounce", I give them fast move orders, with the end points close to the Stug, one on his left flank, and 2 on his right. I make the lead T-34's endpoint one of the 2 on the right flank, because I'm expecting him to die. I give all of them armor cover-arcs in the direction they will first be engaging. We go. . . . the Stug targets that first tank and kills it, but continues to fire on it because of the death clock. By the end of the turn, I have 2 T-34s alive approaching the Stug from both flanks. The fast turret/mobility advantage of the T-34 then kills the Stug, but very possibly even then at the loss of another T-34.

This is a reckless approach, but I'm finding the only way to win with the Soviet AFVs is to be a bit reckless. You have to out maneuver the enemy to win. That is the strength of the T-34 right?!

Anyone found a better approach?

[ January 16, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[Tigrii]

No need to be so cautious against a Stug; Just pop up from behind a hill en masse. You'll be hull-down, the front will be sloped back, inducing lots of richocets, and you might catch it in the side or side/front. Three virtually invulnerable T-34s beat an exposed Stug any day, except at very long range (800+m)

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Tigrii:

No need to be so cautious against a Stug; Just pop up from behind a hill en masse. You'll be hull-down, the front will be sloped back, inducing lots of richocets, and you might catch it in the side or side/front. Three virtually invulnerable T-34s beat an exposed Stug any day, except at very long range (800+m)

I don't mean to offend you but you don't know what you're talking about.

I was hoping for advanced tactics here.

[ January 16, 2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[Erwin Rommel]

Tigrii knows exactly what he is talking about...Hull down is a great way to deal with opposing AFV's..

Another way you could do it is a combination of your tactic and Tigrii's..

Place one or two of the T-34's hull down to occupy the STUG...Then move the remaining tanks under cover toward the flank of the STUG.That way your overpowering its ability to defend itself without exposing its flank to either the flanking tanks or to the Hull down tank.But in this case his would be the more prudent tactic to use.

Edit for spelling

[ January 16, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Erwin Rommel ]

[walpurgis nacht]

STUG/F8 has better optics and is much, much more accurate than the T-34. Sloped armor, hull-down and all, the T-34s are taken out with relative ease at any distance over 200 meters. The best way to minimize Stug's hit chance is by moving fast. T-34 shoots well on the move, and that is it's advantage.

You do not go head-on with any tank-hunting AFVs whenever possible. This gives them the advantage they were designed to have. So no, taking the STUG head-on is not my idea of advanced tactics.

[ January 16, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[Fionn]

Walpurgis is correct.

Those who promote "dueling" with STuG langs with hull-down T34s at medium to long range are quite simply incorrect.

Walpurgis,

Why not outmaneuvre the enemy on a larger scale? In a recent game 2 StuGs sitting in the open some 700 metres away controlled a road my tank company was moving down. I couldn't rush them because they had 3 tanks about 200 metres away hidden by woods sited to fire into the flanks of my T34s as they advanced.

So, after losing 2 T34s trying to rush forward into cover and work my way forward that way I sent 2 x T34s around on a wide flanking maneuvre ( took about 10 turns).

End result 2 StuGs killed by one of the T34s ( at ranges below 100 metres when the T34 popped up behind them) and the other 3 tanks killed by a T34 which popped up on their rear right flank at about 200 metres. Soviet tanks are deadly IF you outmaneuvre the enemy and the best way to do so is by flanking etc. Rushing straight in might work against 1 StuG or an incautious enemy but it isn't going to work against enemy tanks working in platoon formations or against good human players since they should always have overwatching tanks and ATGs a little behind the 2 foremost vehicles.

[Soddball]

Fionn's just highlighted one of the biggest vulnerabilities of the StuG - it can't respond quickly if you strike from the flank, turning takes an age.

This is the case for all tanks, obviously, but turretless tanks like the StuG and Hetzer are slower than the turreted Panzer IVs.

Tigrii obviously hasn't played against anyone with a StuG fetish

[Cogust]

Yeah, frontally engaging a tank you cannot kill even at point blank range with a tank that he can kill any day of the week up to about 1500 meters are not the most advanced tactic available.

Going hulldown will make it harder for the StuG to hit, but who cares if you die on the second or third shot anyway? When you are sitting in a T34/76 and are facing a StuG F/8 or worse, you have to approach the flanks or don't bother at all. Russian 76mm AP can't hurt these things from the front and the 75mm lang will pierce almost any Russian armour out to pretty long ranges.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Fionn:

[QB]Why not outmaneuvre the enemy on a larger scale? QB]

Exactly! That is always the goal on a larger scale. Sometimes (more often than not), a clever defender has set his Stugs to avoid this being possible. Thus my "reckless" approach, which actually works rather well, but you need 3 t-34s for every Stug for it to work.

I do anything and everything to make the Stugs move at close range. Sneak up a 50zis AT gun and draw the Stug into it's LOS. Charge with demo-charge bearing squads. Whatever, just keep the thing moving and you'll at least have an advantage.

The only uber soviet armor is IS-3, and T-44. Both are too expensive for practical use. Even the *mighty*, more practical SU-100 is knocked out by a 75mm AT gun with relative ease.

[Redwolf]

In CMBB the turn rates of AFVs are incredibly low. And especially the StuG III in the 80mm front variants have very bad going in any kind of difficult ground (the StuG IV and Hetzer are much better).

In a recent game I had no trouble just rushing down a road leading to the flank of some StuGs and killing all of them with no return shot hits.

Another weakness is the low ammo load, especially in the StuG IIIs with long 75mm gun. Racing T-34s at bigger distances from the StuG will make him either waste his ammo or cease fire. Either way you should be able to end up in positions so spread out that he cannot cover you effective anymore with his slow turners. The CMBB TacAI will also make predictable choices about its targets which will make you able to detract fire from your decisivly moving units (not entirely unrealistic).

[MikeyD]

I suggest going combined arms. Keep infantry up ahead. In a best-case scenario the infantry recon will let you know how best to surprise the Stug from the rear. Also the infantry can keep the Stug buttoned-up. In worst case scenario the Stug will be too busy merrily killing your infantry to notice your approaching tanks.

[ January 17, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Becket]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Walpurgis is correct.

Those who promote "dueling" with STuG langs with hull-down T34s at medium to long range are quite simply incorrect.

Walpurgis,

Why not outmaneuvre the enemy on a larger scale? In a recent game 2 StuGs sitting in the open some 700 metres away controlled a road my tank company was moving down. I couldn't rush them because they had 3 tanks about 200 metres away hidden by woods sited to fire into the flanks of my T34s as they advanced.

So, after losing 2 T34s trying to rush forward into cover and work my way forward that way I sent 2 x T34s around on a wide flanking maneuvre ( took about 10 turns).

End result 2 StuGs killed by one of the T34s ( at ranges below 100 metres when the T34 popped up behind them) and the other 3 tanks killed by a T34 which popped up on their rear right flank at about 200 metres. Soviet tanks are deadly IF you outmaneuvre the enemy and the best way to do so is by flanking etc. Rushing straight in might work against 1 StuG or an incautious enemy but it isn't going to work against enemy tanks working in platoon formations or against good human players since they should always have overwatching tanks and ATGs a little behind the 2 foremost vehicles.

This is a great post. Thanks very much for the insights, Fionn. I'm a big WWII history buff, but my studies have unfortunately never focused on actual tactics. As a result, my tactics always seem to be lacking and I lose more AFVs than I think I should. Posts like this one really help me learn.

Any suggestions on good ways to learn real world tactics that apply in CMBB? I have Guderian's Achtung Panzer, now I just need to find time to read it. Any other good ones (particularly from the Russian side or just generally applicable doctrines)?

[Other Means]

if you have a ridge in front of, & a clear, scouted path to the flank of the stug then give yourself a quick pinch: you're in tactical heaven.

on the other hand, if there is a stug in the open & cover to the sides then you can be damn sure that your opponent has placed/is rushing his ATI to get a clear shot at any AFV that comes past the sides. the only path open i can recommend is mortar the trees then commit most of your infantry (SMG in front Rifle behind) to clearing a path to the stug's flank. if the stug goes off station to try to support the infantry THEN shoot & scoot out of cover. but if you're going to do it, again commit. throw whatever armor you can up. co-ordinate so the stug is turned.

if the stug sticks, then get your ATI to worry him and then leave a tank behind cover and go for the flank. what extension to get on the flank is one of those questions that only you can answer. balance the threat of hidden AT against what you lose, what you gain, how damn cocky you feel. but keep having your non flanking tank remind him where to point his gun & where not.

now, you've taken out the stug. it's gone ronson. what do you do with the flanking tanks? they're probably exposed but if you can support them then you can turn the enemy.

what to do?

[MikeyD]

Becket writes:

"I lose more AFVs than I think I should."

Remember, the U.S. produced some 40,000 (in round numbers) Shermans but STILL were stretched thin from too few tanks in '45. It seems at times German units would start a month with a nearly full vehicle count and after month at the front would end with a mere handful. CMBB depicts the 'sharp end of the spear' where vehicle carnage seems to be the rule.

[Monty's Double]

Just one thing to add about using Hull Down against accurate shooters like the StuG. Early T-34s have pretty thinly armoured turrets, so Hull Down can be a mixed blessing. You might be cutting the hit chance, but each hit has more chance of getting a kill. That said, shooting and scooting with one or two on the ridge might keep him occupied while you flank.

[Becket]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Becket writes:

"I lose more AFVs than I think I should."

Remember, the U.S. produced some 40,000 (in round numbers) Shermans but STILL were stretched thin from too few tanks in '45. It seems at times German units would start a month with a nearly full vehicle count and after month at the front would end with a mere handful. CMBB depicts the 'sharp end of the spear' where vehicle carnage seems to be the rule.

Hmm, well, now I feel a bit better about losing every single AFV given to me in Jaegermeister.

[Porajkl]

Hulldown is definitely bad idea - no ricochets from upper hull because only your turret is exposed to Stug. And we know that T-34's turret is not a thick one.

[MikeyD]

About hull-down, I remember there was some concern over this back in the Beta days. Problem was a fully exposed vehicle would have a higher probabiliy of getting hit, but a hull down vehicle would have a higher probability of a lethal penetration. Some thought it was safer to go counter-intuitive -- stay exposed to increase your chance of a non-lethal hull ricochet. You can't go by that though, BFC did a LOT of game tweaking after that topic and the release CMBB may be more balanced than it was.

[Fionn]

Becket,

I'd just try to play good players OR, failing that, join the Soviet side of the CMMC. I think there's a definite interest in "training people up" there. I presume the German side is doing likewise of course but I have no first hand experience of that.

Also beware of taking advice from multiple different quarters: further commentary here http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001421

[Becket]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Becket,

I'd just try to play good players OR, failing that, join the Soviet side of the CMMC. I think there's a definite interest in "training people up" there. I presume the German side is doing likewise of course but I have no first hand experience of that.

Also beware of taking advice from multiple different quarters: further commentary here http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001421

I hope to start playing good players soon -- haven't done any PBEMs yet, but I did sign up for the ROW Overflow Tourney to get started.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the CMMC?

[Spook]

CMMC =

Combat Mission Meta Campaign

[Becket]

Originally posted by Spook:

CMMC =

Combat Mission Meta Campaign

Excellent, thanks, I check them out!

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Soddball:

[QB]...turretless tanks like the StuG and Hetzer are slower than the turreted Panzer IVs.

[qb]

i would guess that an atr could take out a hetzer from the side/rear... seeing as how .50 cals were able to achieve this in cmbo...

but the point is well taken... when facing 'turretless tanks' you want to get them in a position where they're facing the wrong way

[MikeyD]

A small suggestion.

Bring along a heavy artillery spotter. If you find yourself unable to dislodge a Stug in a prime ambush position try blasting him out with rockets! (Warning: this may entail 15 minutes of sitting motionless waiting for the rockets to come )

[Hensworth]

I don't know what a StuGF8 is. In january 1942 there appear to be 2 models available : the IIIB and the IIIE.

In any case here is a shot of a StuGIIIF taken out by a trio of T-34's in hull down on the ridge ahead. The T-34's took few hits and no penetrations.

I do realize that it's abandoned and not knocked out, but that will do for me. Another StuG (exact type not identified, but shown as short barrelled) is burning right in front of it and a PzIV also got knocked out in the same shoot out.

I'd say the T-34 in hull down is a potent weapon.

[ January 17, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]