Trouble keeping armor alive

[FM Paul Heinrik]

I'm playing CMBO and I can't seem to keep my German armor from being decimated. Tigers, King Tigers, PzKw V, it doesn't seem to matter, they all brew up whenever contact is made with enemy armor. My armor blows up so quickly it seems as if the ai is cheating or something.

I'm ok if the ai can't get a shot but as soon as they make contact "boom!" I'm toast. It is really quite flustrating. My armor seems to take forever to bracket shots while the ai seems to make one shot kills.

How do I survive? My strategy has been to engage allied armor from as far away as possible because german armor has thicker plating and I can out slug them. I'm starting to think I'm losing this match because of historical reasons...poorer trained tankers and lack of quality pzgr 40 rounds?

My 75mm anti-tank guns have absolutely no problem wasting allied armor because they aren't spotted quickly enough to be destroyed, only after it wipes out an allied platoon is it destroyed by arty fire. But, my tanks...if it doesn't kill with the first shot it's toast.

I hope CMBB has better (funner) tank vs tank engagements.

[stikkypixie]

What are you up against? What kind of tanks?

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

What are you up against? What kind of tanks?

The ones that can kill me but I have no problem killing in return are:

Sherman V or any 76 gun version, M18 tank destroyers, Fire Fly/Jumbos, Church Hill VII.

The ones I have a hard time killing (multiple hits to kill or at least a weak side armor shot) are:

Cromwell IV & VII, M10 Wolverines

I usually use some combo of Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, all models. I shy away from pzkw IVs because if the pzkw V and VI can't do it, what chance do the pzkw IVs have?

Now, the King Tiger does out preform both the Panther and Tiger IVe by being able to take a very hits before brewing up but a lot of the time my (very expensive) King Tiger will get it's cannon damaged and become useless. Also, it seems that my tank crews miss a lot more than the ai crews even when I send the points on "crack" tank crews. I thought that the Germans have better optics so should be able to bracket shots quicker.

In game terms I think the Allies get more bang for their points than the Germans, they can purchase twice the # of tanks that I can.

I notice the AI likes to use Stuarts to sucker me into firing so as to locate my tanks, I could do the same with my recon armor/vehicles but I don't like to just hand out death sentences to my soldiers.

Now, I might be just prejuiced or over confident in Panzer abilities because I do dish out a 2 or 3 to 1 kill ratio most the time but I find it so flustrating that I try my hardest to keep my armor alive and the AI is able to kill them.

I've even experienced a "super gung-ho" infantry platoon hiding in some woods, charge my King Tiger from 150m out and kill it (with hand grenades??) the whole time the King Tiger was unloading main gun and machine guns at them as well as some support from a near by mg 42. That infantry (US) closed the 150m distance in 1 turn and suffered only 2 casaulties before routing and running back (wtf?). I still won that quick battle but, again lost all my armor.

Needless to say, if I can't keep my best battlefield tanks alive I have had absolutely no success keeping anything light alive (assault guns, sp guns, spw 250 series, ect.) That is, at least when enemy armor is hunting.

[flamingknives]

Possibly part of the problem is that you have so much committed to armour points. A crack Tiger costs so much that your opponent can get a whole platoon of tank destroyers and swamp you.

The PzV has very thin sides, and is vulnerable to even a Stuart from those angles.

I'm surprised that Cromwells and M10s are giving you problems. Any of the thick Churchills (VII or VIII on, IIRC) are immune to 75L48 from the front - you need at least a 75L70 or 88mm to kill those. Try using PzIVs and thin skinned stuff, as the challenge actually raises your armour game, so when you switch back, you'll do better with the heavies.

All infantry in CMBO is super-gung-ho. This is toned down in CMBB and CMAK

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The PzV has very thin sides, and is vulnerable to even a Stuart from those angles.

I'm surprised that Cromwells and M10s are giving you problems. Any of the thick Churchills (VII or VIII on, IIRC) are immune to 75L48 from the front - you need at least a 75L70 or 88mm to kill those. Try using PzIVs and thin skinned stuff, as the challenge actually raises your armour game, so when you switch back, you'll do better with the heavies.

All infantry in CMBO is super-gung-ho. This is toned down in CMBB and CMAK

Yes, even Stuarts have killed my Panthers, after a lot of hits though. And that is a real pisser when my Panther is slugging it out with a Stuart and the Stuart wins. I can actually hear the unbuttoned crew laughing at me :mad: . I didn't realize that Panthers sides/rear wear so vunerable. On a side note, I've experience a Stuart wondering right up to a my 2cm flak and I open up on him at around 100m and watch the flak gun spend the next 5-6 rounds bouncing shells off of the Stuart. The Stuart does nothing but sit there until the game ended. I don't remember what exactly was it's problem but it got immobilized (I think just bad luck on it's own) but it never returned fire and the crew didn't bail.

Cromwells? Maybe I meant Churchills, the ones with very flat armor faces and big visible rivits. Churchill or Cromwell, one is easy to kill and the other is a real bear. But, I'm right about the M10s they punch through me like my tanks are made of cheese and I see my shells bouncing off into the stratosphere. I didn't think that it's open turret was that thick.

I was under the impression that German armor (the heavies anyway) was king of the battlefield and could roam with impunity against Western armor but, I guess I'm mistaken. I guess I will have to learn and utilize more real world combined arms tactics to cut down on my armor losses.

Mainly I'm talking about QB that have my armor attrition numbers so high. In the canned scenerios I do quite well, such as "Wittman's final hour" and the one with the Pershings. I've won both those the first time around and on subsequent go arounds it's not unusual for me to not lose a single panzer.

I haven't really played that many games so maybe I'm just getting unlucky, coupled with inexperience and the "curve" will go on my side soon.

I should be receiving CMBB any day now, it does sound a lot better, not that CMBO is bad just that CMBB has more features.

[stikkypixie]

You get a 2/3 to 1 kill ratio, i wouldn't complain, maybe you should try not to expose them that much.

The german tanks maybe king of the battlefield, but it doesn't mean that they are invurnable.

The 76mm especially with Tungsten rounds have no problem going through the big german tanks, the 17 pdr on a firefly even less so.

I don't know what the effects are in CMBO, but in CMBB and CMAK the optics help you spot better, but doesn't improve the accuracy IIRC, you should try to do a search on this in the forum.

[Beta1]

Also in BO muzzle velocity is the main determinant of accuracy and and those 17pdr/76mm guns fire pretty high velocity rounds, certainly as fast as the 88mm on the tiger I. Also in BO even the longer range engagements tend to be only around 800-1000m so your not really in the long range bracket where the heavy armor rules.

Best way to use all tanks is in ambush where you can be sure of getting the first shot. Dont rely on your thick armor to save you, be glad when it does but assume it wont and plan accordingly.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

How come the German tanks don't have any tungsten shells?

I'm starting to think that US armor IS better than German armor. Pershings wow! They tear up Tiger IIs. Even the M4s have thicker turret armor than pzkw IVs so in a hull down shoot out, US Sherman wins plus the Sherman' turret rotates so fast. It can usually start turning getting off 2 shots before 2 pzkw IV can even get guns on it.

Btw, I played a QB using 2 Marauders, pzkw IV H, 1 rifle platoon vs 2 M4s, 3 Stuarts, a half track, and 1 machine gun team. Lost 1 Marauder to a Sherman but not before it took out a Stuart. My remaining Marauder killed 1 Sherman and 1 Stuart while the pzkw IV killed the remaining Sherman and Stuart. I did lose the last Marauder because the crew bailed out because the half track was shooting at it's front armor. That crew should have sit tight because my infantry was engaged with the half track and the pzkw IV was coming up on it fast, oh well. The infantry took out the half track as well as the machine gun team.

I have done a lot of searches and see all the ref. to "JasonC" but all I'm finding is stuff on broad strategies/tactics and others are just arguing different subtleties it seems. There is a lot of post though so it takes time to wade through them all.

thank you for your insights

[flamingknives]

Er, Mr flamingpicky would like to point out that it's Marder, not Marauder.

17pdr has a significantly higher MV than the 88L56.

884m/s as opposed to 773m/s, IIRC.

[Spotless]

FM Paul Heinrik: the Germans were suffering from the prolonged strategic fight by most fights in CMBO. Tungsten was just too hard to come by.

re: Sherman vs. PzIV: you are noticing that the finer-point differences make picking a "best" tank rather tougher than just armor and gun! The key is to exploit the weaknesses of your opponent's armor. If he's using turretless assault guns, those flanking Stuarts and Shermans are gonna be great. If you want to slug it out at range, better hope you have a better crew.

Use what advantages you have, and minimize the risk to the weaknesses. In US armor (to me) that means get in to a knife fight and keep using shoot-n-scoot tactics. Even with heavier German armor, keep the fight mobile, and don't get cocky that your armor will protect you. By war's end, the gun factors had nearly outpaced armor factors, and you get the "hammers vs. eggshells" theory.

Crew factor seems to be the most decisive factor in my armor experience. 3 green tanks do NOT make up for 1 veteran crew IMO. Now there is a limit to that, and numbers will grind down your forces. Even regular crews that outnumber you by more than 2-1 are bad news.

Another strong factor is range to target. If I have a tank that has engaged a certain ridge or other BP, repeat shots to that locale are much more accurate. Remember this factor when you are deciding where to roll out that reinforcement tank. If you are ranged in, find another way 'round, because you will not get steel on target as fast as the tank that just shot up your wingman.

I agree that having those expensive Panthers shot up by Stuarts is frustrating, but strive to minimize his opportunities to get around your flanks. Also, since German armor is usually more expensive/rare, an Allied player will occasionally make mistakes by trying to flank that big cat, and fall into inexpensive AT gun or panzerfaust ambushes at the flanks.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Flamingknives, yep, my mistake, Marder III not marauder. Thanks.

Spotless, yes I'm finding crew experience IS a big factor. But, I don't think it is a simple linear progression, I think it is more of a bell curve. Green crews are horrible compared to regular but crack do not seem that much better than veteran. It would be interesting to see a statistical curve showing skill vs effectiveness.

This game seems very simple to play but in reality it can also be very complex. It is probably very apparent when a good tactical player fights a novice.

Thanks for the insights, this game has a lot of things that go on that is not that apparent to the initiate of tactical combat so helpful insights of tactical docterine is much appreciated.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Flamingknives, yep, my mistake, Marder III not marauder. Thanks.

Spotless, yes I'm finding crew experience IS a big factor. But, I don't think it is a simple linear progression, I think it is more of a bell curve. Green crews are horrible compared to regular but crack do not seem that much better than veteran. It would be interesting to see a statistical curve showing skill vs effectiveness.

This game seems very simple to play but in reality it can also be very complex. It is probably very apparent when a good tactical player fights a novice.

Thanks for the insights, this game has a lot of things that go on that is not that apparent to the initiate of tactical combat so helpful insights of tactical docterine is much appreciated.

[Carl Puppchen]

I agree that Allied tanks are more effective in CMAK than CMBO. I posted a thread on that topic.

In general, the "slug it out from long range with Tiger and Tiger II" isn't really that much fun. It is better to try a mix of combined arms, try buying some AT guns and hopefully the terrain will allow you to make use of them. Or try to concentrate your forces on a flank and get a mismatch of forces (defeat your opponent piecemeal).

I try to buy some of the cheaper tanks like Hetzers and STG's along with AT guns to try to fight it out when the enemy counter attacks and use my better weapons (Panthers, Tigers) on the offensive.

Don't forget that the 'faust and 'shreck infantry AT weapons are in the German's favor, and tank hunter teams can be a good bargain (a lot of time the infantry tend to be stingy shooting off their fausts, in my opinion).

The defender has a lot of advantages. If you can fire from cover, still, at a moving attacker you are going to do some damage. Ideally you can back up after firing before the return fire mauls too much.

If you are always buying King Tigers and your opponent is buying Pershings that is fun for a while but the "uber" tanks make for a slugfest game. Try some of the cheaper tanks and AT weapons for fun, throw in some artillery, and try to fight the battle on better terms (concentration, terrain) than your opponent.

But in general if you rush forward with German tanks you are going to get mauled against a competent opponent. This happens rapidly in CMAK when compared with CMBO.

[JasonC]

Play the allies for a month. Then go back to the Germans and see if you have anything to complain about. I'm quite serious. Playing with the allies you will learn armor tactics. You can't rely on invulnerable front plates. Don't take Churchills or Jumbos or Perhsings, take the regular stuff most of the force actually had. Some upgunned Shermans or TDs, some plain Shermans, some lights. Or T-34s as the Russians, with a few SUs sometimes.

What do you learn? That killing armor is about having the right gun in the right spot and bushwacking a target while it is otherwise occupied. That teamwork creates side angles and keeps a target occupied. That platoons beat single vehicles. That armor doesn't scout, it has foot teams do that first and reacts to known enemy vehicle locations. That armor needs cover just as much as infantry does, it just uses it differently - as a complete LOS block, to deny battle until the right match up has been elaborately staged, or to hide again after a shot and before the reply.

When you can mess up German armor with vanilla Allied stuff, and then go back to big cats - you will see what the big cats can really do. As long as you are leaning on the crutch of that thick front plate, you will never get a tenth of what they can really do out of them. They excel when you are as careful with them as with a 75mm Sherman, meshing their actions with each other, with guns, with infantry scouts, etc. And then just as a bonus, they also win nearly all of their straight up duels and run right over lesser vehicles they catch unawares.

[Seydlitz]

Two things to consider:

1. Silhouette: Try to keep tanks in valleys, not on ridges.

2. Range: The ranges in CM between tanks are drastically shorter than what normally occurred in WWII. This is not as bad in CMBB and CMAK as it is in CMBO, but it still comes into play. Since the range is so short, differences in gun/armor are minimized. Anything can kill anything at 200m, and then things like turret speed come into play. If a Tiger encounters a Wolverine at 200m and the two were facing in different directions (say the M-10 was facing north and the Tiger was facing west), the Wolverine will almost always shoot first. And, that is usually one dead cat.

It's all about seeing the enemy first - just like real life.

[JasonC]

"The ranges in CM between tanks are drastically shorter than what normally occurred in WWII"

Actually, this is doubtful.

A historical survey of ranges of fights in France put a quarter to a third at under 500m, a third to half at 500m to 1000m, and a quarter to a third over 1000m. Not that far from CM experience.

Many engagements were decided at 200m. Why? Hedgerow terrain in Normandy. Morning fog in the Lorraine. Forest roads in Hurtgen or the Bulge. Why didn't the Germans with their better tanks stand off at 2 km and snipe away? One, there weren't that many places to do so (more of them in Italy). Two, they drew aircraft. To avoid allied airpower, the Germans tried to use their armor at night or in fog or in covered terrain areas. And these all reduced engagement ranges.

M-10s fought Panthers in the hedgerows and did fine. M-10s, M-18s, and plain 75mm Shermans fought Panthers in Lorraine fog, and did fine. But it isn't really true that anything kills at 200m. M-10s do, sure. Upgunned TDs are effective against uparmored threats, as you'd expect. But plain 75s don't kill Panthers and Tigers from the front, even close.

What works is getting them from the side, too. And it is just a lot easier to flank somebody when you are close. A short movement changes the angle to the target by a lot when you are close, barely at all when you are far away.

As for other theaters, you might think engagements in the desert would all be fought at extreme range. But reports say that most of the kills occurred around 500m, or 500-1000m. Dust and heat haze obscured targets. Often the guns were weak enough they wouldn't kill at long range (e.g. 50L42 vs. Valentines, with 2 pdrs replying).

In Russia the terrain was there and the weapons too, and the Germans did manage to fight at long range relatively often. But they still sometimes waited for 800m range to open up. Why? To get as many first shot kills from ambush as possible. To make it harder for those ambushed to get away. Things like that. Plenty of the firing was undoubtedly done at extreme range. But most of the actually killing was probably done at medium range - sometimes less. One side or the other usually has an incentive to close.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"The ranges in CM between tanks are drastically shorter than what normally occurred in WWII"

Actually, this is doubtful.

A historical survey of ranges of fights in France put a quarter to a third at under 500m, a third to half at 500m to 1000m, and a quarter to a third over 1000m. Not that far from CM experience.

25-33% of ranges OVER 1000m in BO???

Seems I played a different CM then...

If it ever got to around 800 it was "long range" for BO, very seldom above 1000m as I remember it. Sure not 25-33%.

Head on testing at the shooting range max distance I used was normally 1000m - as longer ranges were too rare.

Marcus

****

[JasonC]

Play 3000 to 5000 point battles. Long ranges do occur, though of course they are a minority of the duels. But my point was that historically as well, most of the tank killing (if not the majority of the shots - a different thing) happened at 1000m and under, in the west. As it does in CM.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Play 3000 to 5000 point battles. Long ranges do occur, though of course they are a minority of the duels. But my point was that historically as well, most of the tank killing (if not the majority of the shots - a different thing) happened at 1000m and under, in the west. As it does in CM.

Even in large BO battles above 1000m seems to me sure less than 25-33%.

Agree that most engagements were under 1000m in the west, have no problem with that, but to me it seems that if you state that 25-33% of engagemetns were 1000m or ABOVE, then even taking the 25% figure it seems to me that BO was a bit off that. In gerneral it is fine the smaller portion being 1000m plus engagements, but I think it is quite a bit smaller than those 25% mentioned by you previously.

Marcus

****

Marcus

****

[Sergei]

But that is not particularly surprising, considering the standard Kamikaze-mentality that GAMERS tend to display. A real commander wouldn't have been so casual about going into close combat, because he didn't think that he only had this 30min period to achieve his objectives and no resupply available if his guns ran out of ammo while firing over longer ranges.

OTOH, here in Finland nearly all engagements would be in the <500m range.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Sergei:

OTOH, here in Finland nearly all engagements would be in the <500m range.

Taking into account the range of a standard toothpick, of course.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Play 3000 to 5000 point battles. Long ranges do occur, though of course they are a minority of the duels. But my point was that historically as well, most of the tank killing (if not the majority of the shots - a different thing) happened at 1000m and under, in the west. As it does in CM.

Even in large BO battles above 1000m seems to me sure less than 25-33%.

Agree that most engagements were under 1000m in the west, have no problem with that, but to me it seems that if you state that 25-33% of engagemetns were 1000m or ABOVE, then even taking the 25% figure it seems to me that BO was a bit off that. In gerneral it is fine the smaller portion being 1000m plus engagements, but I think it is quite a bit smaller than those 25% mentioned by you previously.

Marcus

****

Marcus

**** </font>

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by no_one:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tools4fools:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

Play 3000 to 5000 point battles. Long ranges do occur, though of course they are a minority of the duels. But my point was that historically as well, most of the tank killing (if not the majority of the shots - a different thing) happened at 1000m and under, in the west. As it does in CM.

Even in large BO battles above 1000m seems to me sure less than 25-33%.

Agree that most engagements were under 1000m in the west, have no problem with that, but to me it seems that if you state that 25-33% of engagemetns were 1000m or ABOVE, then even taking the 25% figure it seems to me that BO was a bit off that. In gerneral it is fine the smaller portion being 1000m plus engagements, but I think it is quite a bit smaller than those 25% mentioned by you previously.

Marcus

****

Marcus

**** </font>