One more time....russians misvaloured??

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC

:

The IS-2 turret is probably undermodeled because its "curved" armor plate is treated as modest angle most of the time. I too have seen a ridiculous number of "shell broke up" results against the "reinforced turret front" of the Tiger I. Bouncing 85mm sometimes I can see. In the game, they bounce those practically always and sometimes bounce long 122mm and 152mm.

Then the same affects the Panthers curved mantlet as well Jason, I have seen many long range penetrations of the Panther TF vs T-34-85 & IS-2.

The Soviets found that the 85mm BR-365 round could defeat the Panther turret front at 500 - 700m but only if the round hit the small flat surface on the turret face, it could not defeat the mantlet.

CMBB has the most detailed penetration & armor model existing in any wargame period, & the model is being refined constantly as more data is found. Also remeber CM models round shattrer effects, nose hardness etc.

If ppl have hard data that an aspect of the penetration model is incorrect, then they should get it to BTS, same with armor thickness/angle data, etc.

Regards, John Waters

[Amedeo]

Has BFC revealed something on the inner workings of the 'curved' feature? Is we assume a perfectly hemispherical mantlet a simple calculation shows that the fraction P of hits that should strike the armour at an angle comprised between 0° and X° should be P=sin(X). Thus 50% of the hits should strike at more than 30°, likely causing a ricochet, if it's not a clear overkill situation, while only 17% of the hits should strike at 10° or less, thus acting against a quasi vertical plate.

Regards,

Amedeo

[JasonC]

John, I've discussed the problems of "curved" with people here endlessly, and I know the BTS people have heard all about it, in the context of early T-34 turret fronts in particular. I don't expect anything to actually be done about it.

What is noteworthy is that cases arise where a low armor quality rating (limited by the engine to one rating for the whole tank, rather than plate by plate), a curved plate, or a detailed "thesis" about specific substandard or more than standard ammo or plate attributes, or some combination of them, all give rise to a tactical outcome that AARs do not support. And then it is always the model guesses that are believed. Or the thinnest tangential historical reports are bent out of recognition to support the outcome.

It is also noteworthy that when this results in some clear case of underperforming equipment that is particularly "sexy" or "grog loved", another technical correction is often looked for and sometimes found. When on the other hand it doesn't or cuts the other way, no amount of argument suffices.

The Panther turret front suffers from "curved" combined with an armor quality number better suited to the glacis than to the turret front. This makes a tactical difference in the era of 85mm guns before improved APCR for those becomes available, in particular. There are numerous AARs of Panthers killed by US 76mm hits on the turret front, a gun of comparable penetrating power. I can give you numerous citations if anybody doubts it.

But it probably happens out to somewhat farther ranges, more reliably, than it actually did. It is practically the only case where such an issue works for rather than against the Russians, and it is at the margin (changes lethal range, not lethal vs. not).

On the other side, let me list some. T-34 turret fronts are vunerable to 37mm AP. Um, just a little more important. The early models are reliably penetrated to 1000m by 50L42. The IS-2 is vunerable to the 75L48 to 1000m. Russian 76mm AP is modeled as so poor in armor penetration terms that StuGs are invunerable from the front at point blank range. Tiger sides and rear, and Pz IV hulls, likewise. Tiger turret fronts are practically invunerable to 85mm AP, even close.

I'd like to see the AARs - as opposed to "deep grog speculation" - that support a single one of those outcomes. But I don't expect any. I expect only hand waving and tangential comments and faith in minutae of the modeling. The basic notion that a cross check from historical reports must verify any marked change suggested by grog minutae simply does not appear to be part of the design process.

When I have suggested as much before - as I have numerous times - I am told that AARs are like... opinions - everyone has one.

Meanwhile, all of these are grog quibbles, and while I don't like StuG - T-34 duels that don't have a lethal range for Russian 76mm vs. 80mm plate, etc, I can still play the game when it is a question of flanking a StuG.

When it is a question of tanks refusing to follow orders because the Tac AI is cowering from a Tiger I, on the other hand, I can't play the game. The first rule of strategy game design is that the outcome must depend on the decisions of the players. And with tank cower as it presently is, that just is not the case when 1941 KVs or 1943 Tigers crawl onto the field. So I just won't play scenarios with those in them.

I've also suggested how to handle that, to change the cower or shoot decision to a reasonable SOP, one that will allow teamwork tactics against such beasties. I offered pseudo code for such a routine. Basically, only cower if the threat is facing within 30 degrees of you, and you don't have a round in the tube ready to fire. Not complicated. I'd love to see that sort of tweak in 1.03. I can live with all the other stuff.

[ April 09, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What is noteworthy is that cases arise where a low armor quality rating (limited by the engine to one rating for the whole tank, rather than plate by plate),

Patently false as can be seen in the model of the Panther that has separate quality ratings for the cast turret mantlet, flawed glacis and side armour plates.

The T-34 also suffers from an overall 90% armour quality compounded by the turret mantlet suffering another indignity of having the cast modifier subtracting quality as well.

The T-34 is a ?grog? loved bit of kit and in many publications considered the finest tank of the war, while building up a mythology of invincibility. Attempting to support arguments that the T-34 should be stronger by accusing "grogs" board members of bias is a pretty "poor show" and verging on a ad hominem debate.

[White Phosphorus]

Did anybody notice that the actual frontal plate on the early T-34 makes up about 1/2 of the turret "front". Then why is it that every shot that hits the turret from the front, impacts the frontal plate? Shouldn't some of those shots glance of the side turret armor. Same thing goes for the panther btw.

RPG-43 may have been the first HEAT grenade, but there were also HE anti-tank grenades like the RPG-40.

I think the Soviets infantry should roll for a random non-molotov AT weapon in the early war, and random captured german AT weapon in the Late war. Kind of like how the Germans roll for the PPShs.

[gorgias]

Well i can not answer now... for JasonC did it for me... and a lot of better i would do. My english is no good and added i see Jason knows a lot of more than me about this questions. Only i can say i support him in 99% he says.

I dont know so much about tactics, armor, equippement ect..etc..... but i am sure absolutely about a question.... Now i can play scenaries (it's my stupid hobbie now ) where i take a single Tiger (early) a single infantry platoon (both regular) and i play versus a company of T-34 (m43 usually) more some KVs (model 41) artillery (mortars) and a company of infantry more some support. Usually in ME or "Delay". Representing "my own citadel operation" . Well i win the 99% of times and when i draw is for the tiger run out its ammunition. I´m a genius?? ABSOLUTELY not. It´s the IA really stupid?? maybe.... but i dont like that an excelent wargame as CMBB allow to me to win this games....... Really i´m a IGNORANT hehehe (as some "german" boy said) but i´m not so stupid.... i see clearly this is no normal and no realistic... Maybe i some heroic action of war some tiger did some seemed..... i dont know... but it was normal as in the game....??

Dont polemic more.... there is a certain fact.... the tiger is practically invulnerable playing soviets during second half of 42 and almost all the 43... and the rest of time it´s a very very very harder opponent.... in the hands of a human player (not IA) gives a enormous advantage in a TCP/IP game or PBEM. Well i dont know if it was so (and u neither) for i think nobody fight in WWII in east front.... but i´ve played a lot of wargames and its rare in the most of them that a single tiger can disable 10 T34 (or more) plus KVs... without almost damage..... Maybe i´m mistaken and it was so.... but really it´s very strange.... I see more logical simplely the game overstime the germas as many others do.... But dont worry for me... i´m a ignorant...... continue killing soviets easily.... well there is good boxers who only fight "sparrings" hehehe they want to continue being a "pretty face".....

[JasonC]

Bastables thinks I want the T-34 to be invincible. Well, actually he doesn't, but he thinks it sounds good. Better, anyway, than trying to defend T-34s killed by 37mm guns, while on the other hand their 76mm guns can't kill a StuG from the front at any range.

My challenge stands. Find me one AAR, one eyewitness account, demonstrating StuG invunerability to 76mm AP from the front at any range. That is, preferably, a report of T-34s firing point blank at StuG fronts and hitting multiple times, without loss to the StuGs.

Out ranging them, better optics, low outline - all are in the AARs. Invunerable from the front at point blank is not. CMBB AARs about (thousands of) StuGs read like real life AARs about (a few score) Elephants.

Find me one AAR, one eyewitness account, of T-34s killed by successful penetrations by 37mm guns from the front. Every nimnut who has played the demo has done it. Nobody can find a single eyewitness account from the real war where it happened. Doesn't anyone find that a little strange?

You won't produce them. They aren't there. It didn't happen. (If every 1942-3 StuG killed half as much in real life as they can in CM, let alone what the Tigers do, Germany would have won the war).

But if a StuG could be penetrated at point blank or at 500m, then might a Tiger (horrors!) sometimes get hurt from the side? Can't have that I guess. (Realistically, a killer gun, long range, an invunerable front, and ever present side angle would still make the Tiger a terror - but any chance at all might mar its relived glory days I suppose). If a T-34 turret front bounced 37mm AP, once uparmored might it not bounce rather a lot of 50mm, from late 41 through 42?

The original subject of the thread was IS-2s. Those who think they are properly modeled advance as evidence the ability of big cats to duel with them. But I don't find it unrealistic that they are worse at dueling big cats. They don't withstand ordinary 75mm. Attack with them in sections of the line without heavy tanks. Fine, I will. Will they work then? No, they will not.

They freaking cower from blessed Pz IVs. Yes, fully IDed, no mistake on the ID. I've seen it. Anybody want to explain that to me as "realistic"?

As I said, I can live with "curved" being too weak, and I can live with forty gazillion minutae bits all thrown at the 76mm APHE until enough stick to make 1942 German AFVs invunerable, when nobody at the time noticed the fact. Just fix the darn tank cower routine, and I will happily flank all the StuGs and hail fire the Tigers into oblivion.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by gorgias

:

Dont polemic more.... there is a certain fact.... the tiger is practically invulnerable playing soviets during second half of 42 and almost all the 43...

The Soviets tested the German PAK 40 against Tiger E armor below is the jist of the results:

PAK 40:

"In spite of the fact, that this captured artillery system reliably penetrates the armor plates of 80mm and 85mm thickness from the

testbench at the virtual distance of 600m, during the firing at "Tiger" tank by two pieces with 30 AP rounds each from a distance of 600-500m no full penetrations of side armor were obtained

Conclusion: "Tiger" tank currently is invulnerable to attack by conventional AP shell from all known models of medium calibre AT artillery

Signed

Saenko, Melnikov, Satel

Verified: Ustinov, Voronov

September 11, 1943"

there were also no side penetrations obtained by the following guns:

ZIS-3

F-22USV

F-34

PaK-36®

57mm M1 gun

85mm obr.1941 AT gun.

Penetrations were obtained by only 2 guns, the 57mm ZIS-2 & 85mm AT gun using an "improved round".

Regards, John Waters

[ April 09, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[gorgias]

Jason the original thread was about the misvaloured soviets . I agree with u say about stug, 37 mm and T34...

Pz. well the soviet didnt use 57 mm and 85 mm usually to late 43... before that they kill tigers?? Only with artillery?? Only with aircrafts?? Only molotovs (because the soviets hadnt another AT weapon true?)?? Perhaps the tiger crew suicide ?? I suposse only the SU 152 killed tigers (not mentioned in that inform)Of course no soviet tank or ATG gun can disable a tiger if it was invulnerable..... Wow really the soviet generals were genious if only one tiger could knock out dozens of T34 (main battle russians tank) without suffer any damage (as in the game).

[JasonC]

Meanwhile, the Russians also recommend opening up with 76mm ATGs at 600-800m ranges, against 80mm front German AFVs.

Am I the only one who notices that the Tiger's turret side is not flat in the horizontal direction, even if it is in the vertical one? And how often is the side angle literally zero? The lower side hull is obscured by running gear, obviously. Yet the match up seems tweaked to make 76mm fail against any 80mm flat plate.

Jentz reports the invunerability of the side armor of the Tiger as "at ranges over 800m". German tactical doctrine was to engage at long range, 1 km or longer. Many report a point blank or rear area of vunerability to US short 75s, and a longer one as their ammo improved.

And many report the quality level of Tiger armor was exceptional, compared to StuGs or Pz IV hulls. But in CMBB, it is the Russian 76mm that is "dumbed down" until it can't penetrate any of them.

If T-34s would fire instead of cowering, I wouldn't mind killing Tigers with "hail" instead of close flank penetrations. "Hail" is easier to apply, tactically speaking.

That every 80mm flat plate was invunerable to Russian 76mm (until 1944 APCR etc) is something rather more, and does not square with known tactics and AARs.

The Russian field manual BTS sells on this website gives the effective range of 76mm ATGs against 80mm front era German "vanilla" AFVs as 600 to 800m. That is what the Russians themselves were actually doing in the real war. I've seen their estimates for the 76mm tank gun in the T-34 of around 500m for the same enemy. Were they stupid?

Also please note, John, that it claims the *PAK 40* couldn't penetrate 80mm of vertical plate at 500m. This alone should tell you something screwy is going on with this report. By CMBB figures, the PAK 40 should penetrate 128mm of vertical plate at that range.

That is 1.6 times what is needed to defeat the armor. That may be a huge amount of shatter gap, but it certainly is *not* "the side of a Tiger resists like 140mm of vertical armor, because German engineers eat their wheaties."

[ April 09, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by gorgias:

Gorg I'm not debateing with you how Tigers were lost etc, I supplied you, with the contents of an official Soviet report on live fire trials vs an Tiger E conducted by the Soviets the

'invulnerable' remarks are theirs not mine.

Below are examples of Tiger losses:

s.H.Pz.Abt 502(511) 19.08.42 - 27.04.45:

Total losses 107, 82% lost in action, 13% destroyed by crew, 5% other causes. 502 was credited with the destruction of over 1400 tanks & 2000 guns.

s.H.Pz.Abt 503 09.01.43 - May 1945:

Total losses 252, 45% lost in action, 49% destroyed by crew, 6% other causes. 503 was credited with the destruction of over 1700 tanks and well over 2000 guns.

s.H.Pz.Abt 505 07.07.43 - 15.04.45:

Total losses 126, 37% lost in action, 49% destroyed by crew, 14% other causes. 505 was credited with the destruction of over 900 tanks, and 1000 guns.

As to te T-34s survivability In 1942 12,520 T-34 were produced, 6,000 were destroyed in combat. In 1943 61% of all T-34s produced were were lost, in 1944 52% of all T-34s built & sent into combat were lost. An Soviet report on tank destruction casualties stated only 25 - 33% of the tank crewman survived their tanks destruction.

So how were these T-34 lost? the standard German tank in 1942 was the PzKpfw III, the standard PAK was the PAK 50, the German inf had no MPAT weapons, Ie, Panzerfaust. Its interesting to note in Dec 1941 Soviet KV-1 crews reported they could no longer sit with impunity in front of German Inf positions, because the PAK 50 could penetrate their armor.

Its also interesting to note Soviet ATRs had no problems penetrating PzKpfw III's or PzKpfw IV side hull & turret armor even in 1943.

Below is an excerpt from Soviet live fire tests vs the Panther Ausf.D conducted after Zitadelle:

"One Panther (Turret No. 441) after capture from the Germans under went a firing trial from the 76-mm cannon of the T-34 tank. All 30 shots were done by armour-piercers from a distance of 100 meters, twenty hits on the glacis and ten to the lower frontal plate. The glacis plate was not penetrated, all shells bounced, in the lower plate there was only one hole.

On the basis of examination of destroyed Panthers the following conclusions were made, that they are *defeated*:

a) by anti-tank rifle - in the lower side plate of hull from distance 100 meters and nearer (at right angles);

by the subcalibre shell of 45-mm cannon - unless the frontal armor;

c) by armour-piercer of 76-mm cannon - unless the frontal armor;

d) by armour-piercer of 85-mm anti-aircraft cannon;

e) by the anti-tank mines (tracks)"

Regards, John Waters

[ April 10, 2003, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC

:

And many report the quality level of Tiger armor was exceptional, compared to StuGs or Pz IV hulls. But in CMBB, it is the Russian 76mm that is "dumbed down" until it can't penetrate any of them.

Jason I havent experienced any of this I lose PzKpfw IV H's to front hull penetrations to T-34-76s out to 1400m & the PzKpfw IVH fails to penetrate the T-34-76's armor above 1200m.

If T-34s would fire instead of cowering, I wouldn't mind killing Tigers with "hail" instead of close flank penetrations. "Hail" is easier to apply, tactically speaking.

I have run Tiger II into IS-2s on Royal Oponnet & watched the Tiger II reverse while the IS-2 kept comeing, same with T-34-85.

That every 80mm flat plate was invunerable to Russian 76mm (until 1944 APCR etc) is something rather more, and does not square with known tactics and AARs.

I have lost countless PzKpfw IV H to 76mm guns, & killed them with the T-34-76 they had no problem defeating the 80mm plate.

Also please note, John, that it claims the *PAK 40* couldn't penetrate 80mm of vertical plate at 500m. This alone should tell you something screwy is going on with this report. By CMBB figures, the PAK 40 should penetrate 128mm of vertical plate at that range.

That is 1.6 times what is needed to defeat the armor. That may be a huge amount of shatter gap, but it certainly is *not* "the side of a Tiger resists like 140mm of vertical armor, because German engineers eat their wheaties."

That tells me nothing is screwy with the report Jason, because this was an actual test, not a simulation in a computer game. Ie, in Soviet live fire tests vs Tiger II @ Kubinka US "76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."

Concerning the T-34's armor resistance it was designed to defeat undermatching projectiles which left it extremely vulnerable to overmatching projectiles, from German lang guns, Ie, 7.5 cm L/43,L/48, L/70, 8.8cm L/56, & L/71. T-34 armor due to its high BHN (400-500+) which made the armor very brittle, so that it offered no follow up protection (resistance) vs repeated impacts in the area of an penetration, whole pieces of armor would shatter etc, unlike the Shermans lower BHN(240 - 250BHN) plate which offered protection vs repeated hits in the same area after an penetration etc.

I have said this before you have a problem with the model, document it with hard data, sarcasm will get you know where in proveing your case. Make a test fire range, document the results, and send the saves showing the results to BTS. Many of your posts imply some bias by BTS for German equiptment, yet I have seen none of this in CMBBs development in fact they bent over backwards to obtain Soviet data, as well as enlisted Valera etc, to help.

You claimed earlier that the AQ rateing was based on 1 thing only, on what do you base that? please point me to the post by BTS that states AQ is singly modeled.

The data used for the armor & ballistics model is extensive off the top of my head I can reccomend some material if your interested:

PENETRATION OF ARMOUR PLATE by US ORDNANCE BOARD, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, March 1950. NTIS call number PB91-127506

GERMAN TANK ARMOR by the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-committee(BIOS) 1946. This is held in the Tank Museum Library at Bovington, England.

"GERMAN EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE (PROJECTILES AND PROJECTILE FUZES)" March, 1953, Available from the NTIS under call number ADA376695 presents all known technical parameters of every German projectile by that date. Cut-away drawings for each projectile. The report was a compilation of the wartime U.S. "Captured Ammunition Bulletin" series and the U.K. "Handbook of Enemy Ammunition Pamphlet" series.

WW II BALLISTICS: Armor and Gunnery, L. Bird and R. Livingston, Overmatch Press.

The NTIS has a report which is an index of all the reports from the DRC (National Defense Research Committee) which can be obtained under the call number AD-221610.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 10, 2003, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[JasonC]

"I lose PzKpfw IV H's to front hull penetrations to T-34-76s out to 1400m & the PzKpfw IVH fails to penetrate the T-34-76's armor above 1200m."

Um, no, not with this game you don't. You may lose Pz IVs at that range, but only to turret hits, not to hull hits.

And the T-34 is penetrated, every plate and every angle, reliably, by the 75L48 to 1500m. You will occasionally see a turret "shell broke up" or "ricochet" result from high random angle from "curved". You will sometimes see partial pens at the edge of that range against the upper front hull, or on the turret due to random angle again. But basically every plate is vunerable and every hit is effective.

I don't really have a problem with that side of it - though I do think the "curved" is being slighted somewhat, it makes little practical difference for the T-34 against a gun that good. It is only the IS-2 vs. 75L48, or the T-34 against earlier guns, that are seriously harmed by undermodeled "curved". The 75L48 should kill T-34s at range and does, no problem.

But at 1400m, hits on the hull of a Pz IV - or anywhere on the front of a StuG - certainly do not result in penetrations. At 750m, they don't result in penetrations. You get an occasional "internal flaking" result. At 550m, you get flaking or "shell broke up".

At 100m, the T-34s kill chance estimate still reads "low" - and rightly so. Turret hits kill, certainly. (StuGs don't have the 50mm turret front vunerability, of course). But even at that range, the most common result is "shell broke up", with some penetrations, mostly partial ones, if the hull is hit.

That is with mid 1943 ammo. With some of the ammo in earlier periods, it is even worse. By 1944, right before the T-34/85 becomes available, they get APCR and that can finally kill 80mm fronts if close enough.

The interrelatedness of the issues can easily be seen. The front armor of a StuG is as thick as the side armor of a Tiger, and better sloped than the upper side hull aka side superstructure of the Tiger. If thickness vs. diameter and supposed ammo weakness effects are to render the 76mm incapable of killing a Tiger from the side even at close range, then as a side effect StuGs will be rendered invunerable from the front down to close range.

There is no AAR evidence, that I have ever seen or heard of anyway, that the latter was truly the case. Plenty of reports on StuGs speak of the effectiveness of the 75L48, of optics, of crew skill, of low outline, of outranging the T-34s which were forced to close. None mentions T-34s being incapable of killing a StuG from the front even at point blank range.

As for the statement that "it is a real firing case" as though that means nothing screwy can be going on, what exactly is *your* explanation for why a gun that can routinely penetrate 125mm of vertical plate failed to penetrate 80mm of supposedly vertical plate in that instance?

I can give you half a dozen off the top of my head. But none will start with "the side of a Tiger was 50% thicker than everyone thought, and everyone just failed to report the fact to any of us". But let's hear yours.

Should the penetration of the PAK 40 be reduced to less than 80mm of vertical plate at 500m? If so, is it still going to KO T-34s out to 1500m?

The upper front hull of a T-34 has 45mm at 60 degrees. Most angle equations put the effect of 60 degrees of slope at 2 times to 2.2 times vertical plate. That means the upper front hull of the T-34 was about the equivalent of 90-100mm thickness at vertical.

One can allow at 10% reduction for quality. But there isn't a whole lot of difference in overall protection between T-34 upper hull front and Tiger side. The reason the T-34s die at range and the Tigers live to close range is supposed to be that the 75L48 is a so much better gun than the 76L42. But the test report you cite says the PAK 40 failed. The German gun.

If you think angle vs. thickness is a huge effect, substitute a KV in place of the T-34. Same result. The 75L48 has to be strong enough to kill the KV; there are AARs that they did so.

It will therefore be strong enough to kill the Tiger from the side.

[JasonC]

In the operational records you cite, the Tiger reported combat losses compared to claimed kills are running about 15 to 1. But over the life of whole units, not in single afternoons. A single battalion fielding 50 Tigers at full strength (but typically half that probably) turned over 250 in 19 months and claimed 1700 AFVs destroyed. Which is all of 3 tanks a day. Bunched up certainly, but not those bunches repeated day after day.

And claims, not confirmed on the other side. And counting all the times the Tigers were put out of action, recovered and repaired, and got to hunt again. And nearly matched by supposedly non combat losses. When naturally a large portion of "destroyed by crew" means combat damage disabled the tank, and it was finished off to prevent capture. What battlefield knockout ratios are compatible with those figures? Anything from 15 to 1 down to more like 3-5 to 1.

A real 15 to 1 would mean the 1 part in 36 of the German AFV fleet Tigers represented, on their own accounted for 1 out of 5 Russian AFV losses from all causes, tanks guns and fausts, combat or not, etc. 5 is a more believable figure. But 5 or 10 to a lost Tiger, not every half an hour for ages without loss.

If you instead take literally every loss ratio claim by the Germans and try to total up the destroyed Allied tanks, you will quickly find that the Russians supposedly lost 3-5 times as many tanks as they had.

[JasonC]

If you'd like some of my guesses of how the Russians managed to report PAK 40 failure at 500m vs. 80mm plate, I have plenty. In no particular order -

1. shatter gap from hell

2. hit the curved turret, running gear, edges of superstructure ("lengthwise" through added armor), a few partials elsewhere.

3. high side angle. Perhaps they were testing whether aiming for the side of a rotated hull tank (basically front aspect) works on Tigers like it can on Panthers and found it doesn't.

4. bad powder in the captured ammo fired

5. a "blown out" captured PAK 40 tube

6. just a way of screaming "get us a freaking real gun you commie SOBs!"

80mm is really 130mm if you are German, even when shot by a German gun, is not one of them.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Um, no, not with this game you don't. You may lose Pz IVs at that range, but only to turret hits, not to hull hits.

Ahh ok

Jason of course, i cant read.

And the T-34 is penetrated, every plate and every angle, reliably, by the 75L48 to 1500m.

Not on my PC it isn't, sorry to ruin your day, in fact I have been this close for asking BTS to check 75L/48 penetration; because of the number of failures above 1200m Ie, 4 PzKpfw IV engaged multiple T-34-76 M43 @ 1503 - 1609m I recorded 29 bounces off the T-34 hull/turret, vs 3 DFP bounces on the PzKpfw IVs results were 4 PzKpfw destroyed vs 0 T-34, these are the results I see all the time, yet you tell me I can't be etc.

As for the statement that "it is a real firing case" as though that means nothing screwy can be going on, what exactly is *your* explanation for why a gun that can routinely penetrate 125mm of vertical plate failed to penetrate 80mm of supposedly vertical plate in that instance?

I dont have to provide an explanation, these are _ACTUAL_ results not a computer games calculations etc. You would do much better to ask Rexford to respond to the rest of the diatribe.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 10, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

In the operational records you cite, the Tiger reported combat losses compared to claimed kills are running about 15 to 1. But over the life of whole units,

And where did I claim that it wasnt the life of the unit? I thought the dates of operation covered that.

And claims, not confirmed on the other side. And counting all the times the Tigers were put out of action, recovered and repaired, and got to hunt again. And nearly matched by supposedly non combat losses. When naturally a large portion of "destroyed by crew" means combat damage disabled the tank, and it was finished off to prevent capture.

Jason, your assumeing much, the data i have covers only total writeoffs or should I say irreversible losses. Your destroyed by crew explanation Jason, comes to mind unless you consider running out of fuel, and mechanichal breakdowns which was the majority of destroyed by crew causes as 'combat damage'.

If you instead take literally every loss ratio claim by the Germans and try to total up the destroyed Allied tanks, you will quickly find that the Russians supposedly lost 3-5 times as many tanks as they had.

Soviet Tank/SU losses by year:

1941 - 20,500

1942- 15,100

1943 - 23,500

1944 - 23,700

1945 - 13,700

Total Soviet Tank/SU losses in the GPW = 96,500

Now before you decide to post explaining to us your theories on how tanks are lost, varying cause/classifications, etc, understand these are total losses. What they do show is the Germans would have had to work pretty hard to hit that '3-5 times as many tanks as they had' mark.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 10, 2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

*Ahem* If I may interrupt your grog pissing match for a moment...

There are a couple of issues with the game's modeling that I have never received a satisfactory answer to with regard to Stug armor resistance vs. Soviet projectiles.

First, why is the actual performance of Soviet AP shot consistently less than the figures given in the unit stats screen. For example, a T-34/76 in June 1944 using blunt-nosed APBC ammo will penetrate 86mm of armor at 100m according to the stats window. Yet, vs. a Stug III with 80mm of front armor, at a range of 50m, the targeting tool gives the chance of penetration as NONE!

Secondly, why do the Stugs with appliqué armor resist better than Stugs with solid plates? Put 2 T-34/85s in June '44 firing blunt-nosed APBC up against a Stug IIIF late (front armor 50mm+30mm), and a Stug IIIG middle (front armor 80mm). The earlier Stug IIIF resists better. I was somehow under the impression that solid plate resisted better than two separate plates of equivalent thickness. If this in not so, why did the Germans purposely downgrade the protection of their Stugs later in the war by using solid plate in place of the more effective appliqué?

[ April 10, 2003, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[offtaskagain]

The reason the Stugs with 2 plates resist better is due to both plates being face hardened. This has a greater effect on the projectile than just 1 FH plate. Rexford had a thread about it sometime ago. If it were two RHA plates the effect would be what you are expecting.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ok, so if the two FH plates are better, why did the Germans not keep using them?

[Andreas]

Ease of production? AIUI the 2-plate solution was a field expedient.

Also, this may not have been as well understood at the time the decisions were made as it is now.

[JasonC]

61k dead Russian tanks from 1943 to the end of the war.

German AT systems 43-45, with typical German claim rates assigned -

1350 Tigers @ 15 = 20K

6000 Panthers @5-10 = 30-60K

15000 Pz IV and StuG @2-3 = 30-45K

7500 TDs @2-4 = 15-30K

26000 75mm PAK @ 1 = 26K

4500 88mm PAK or army FLAK @ 2-4 = 9-18K

16000 tank killer awards = 16-32K by faust etc

equals 146-231k dead AFV, leaving nothing to 21 million AT mines, arty, air, breakdowns and maintenance losses - and claiming every dead AFV 2-4 times over.

In fact, the number of major AT weapons systems fielded by Germany from 43 to 45 is 60K, about the same as Russian AFV losses. Not counting the 16k recognized as killed by infantry weapons.

One can therefore safely conclude the average kills per major German AT weapon in the 43-45 period was about 1. If higher for Tigers it is because it is lower than for Pz IVs or towed PAK, etc.

If you try a more conservative set of numbers - Tigers 5, Panthers 3, 75mm PAK 1/2, everything else only 1 - you still get 81K claims in a period when the Russians lost only 61K, including maintenance losses. Tigers 4, Panthers 2, towed 75mm 1/4, towed 88 1/2, others 1 is closer.

You can get some padding from western losses but those are an order of magnitude lower than Russian ones so they don't help very much. (E.g. US TWOs of mediums in the ETO were under 5000). The truth probably lies between those two sets of conservative numbers - 4-5 Tiger, 2-3 Panther, less than 1 for PAK and FLAK, near 1 for everything else.

Some Russian tanks may have been killed, recovered, and rekilled. But on the other side of the ledger, many were lost to maintenance issues rather than knocked out. Those together are probably a wash.

So yeah, it is actually quite easy to get to 3-5 times the real number killed, when you claim multiple kills for practically every weapon system fielded. When you field 60K AFVs and heavy PAK along with millions of infantry AT and AT mine systems, giant kill per system numbers are not needed to rack up 61K dead Russian AFVs.

The truth is the Russians "exchanged off" all the heavy AT systems the Germans produced. And were left with 30K tanks when the Germans ran out of heavy AT systems. That's why (in case everybody forgot) they won the war.

[JasonC]

Andreas - it is completely silly that two plates are treated as better than 1. Everyone else's formulas for combined plates shows lowered resistence, not increased. When I discussed this with Rexford in the past, his views seemed to have been based on a report of 30+30 armor resistence that was probably a figure for 30+50, with someone along the way having mistaken a single printed or written "5" for a "3". German practice of replacing field expediant bolted armor with uniform factory built plates was obviously based on the conviction that the uniform plate resisted better - as indeed every other armor formula out there agrees.

As for why Russian 76mm underperforms the numbers CMBBs own formulas give to it, as read out on the penetration chart, this is what I have been trying to tell you. Russian practice agrees with CMBBs own numbers - they opened up at the ranges you'd expect from reading those charts. Their estimates of effective ranges also fit them. So do German tactics and AAR reports. No AARs or actual combat reports support the opposite.

But those figures would allow 76mm to penetrate the sides of Tigers at close range, if the side angle gets low enough. Believing reports that this did not happen set the designers on a quest to find the reason. They found enough ammo grog minutae to suggest defective Russian ammo quality may have been to blame.

Then, without any cross check control from existing tactical doctrines or AARs from related cases like StuG fronts, they just "dumb down" Russian 76mm APHE, and for that matter early 85mm as well. Where other forms of ammo would only encounter "shell broke up" shatter like results when seriously overpenetrating with a shell of the wrong hardness, (greater than 1.15 at a minimum) these Russian rounds are afflicted with "shell broke up" results pretty much as soon as they can penetrate the armor. You can get very occasional "partials", that is all.

In an earlier period, the printed numbers for the 76mm APHE are lowered further to account for poor quality ammo. You see some periods (e.g. early 1942) when the printed penetration number at 100m is lower than that at 500m. This just happens to give them problems killing even 70mm front tanks.

Russian tactical practice was to close to 500m in the era of 80mm front vehicles. That was thought close enough by them, at the time. Their towed ATGs were somewhat superior, and those they opened with at 600m (for the ZIS-3) to 800m (for the best of the towed 76s). Germans sought to open even ambush engagements farther than 500m. Jentz records the invunerability of Tigers from the side as "at ranges over 800m", and they sought to open at 1.5 to 2 km.

Incidentally, with 85mm AP a similar issue arises, but this time against 100m armor instead of 80mm. The Russians record their 85mm as effective against 100mm armor only at a range of 500m or less. So do the CMBB armor penetration numbers printed on the charts. But in practice, these all become "shell broke up" results. Again without justification in historical AARs or tactical practices, on either side.

None of which is consistent with any supposed inability of 76mm APHE to penetrate 80mm of vertical armor. But if you want to make Tigers invunerable even at point blank and "flat" 90 degree shots from the side, then you have no choice but to keep looking for ammo grog minutae until you accumulate a case against the offending round.

The printed numbers in the tables are correct. The easy "shell broke up" stuff is incorrect, and reflects little other than uber-Tiger revisionism.

[ April 11, 2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think it must be due to some modifier given to Soviet ammo for poor quality, because it does not seem to affect lend-lease equipment. In fact, the best anti-tank units the Soviets have for most of the war (in the game) are lend-lease (Valentine IX, then Sherman 76).

Compare the in-game penetration tables for the T-34/85 and Sherman(76) in June 1944. The 85L55 numbers are slightly better than those of the 76L52. But, when you do actual tests the 76 significantly out-performs it.

I don't know about the 2-plates issue as I'm not an authority on this stuff, but I do know that when Charles found out (from Rexford, ironically) that part of the Sherman Jumbo's front armor consisted of 2 separate plates, he downgraded the armor value in the next patch (CMBO, of course). I could even dig up the thread if I had to.

[ April 11, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Andreas]

Don't know about everybody else's CMBB, but in mine the 76mm on the late model 43 T34 penetrates the Tiger side armour at point blank ranges partially <100m and fully <50m with no resort to Tungsten rounds. It also penetrates the single plate Stug frontally below 100m.

What it does not penetrate is the double-plated Stug. I have no idea whether it should or not.