One more time....russians misvaloured??

[walpurgis nacht]

1) Don't bother pitting IS-2s against tigers. In fact, don't bother using IS-2s at all, except perhaps, once the armor battle is finish and you want infantry bashers.

2)Around August '43 the late model t34/76 has tungsten. THIS is your weapon to wax the mighty tiger. They are cheap, cheap, cheap (-10 to -5 rarity). Buy hordes. Here's what you do: Move "fast" ALWAYS, swarm the tiger with your T-34s in the typical fashion, a few front, a few left, and a few right. Lead with the t-34/76s that were not lucky and didn't receive tungsten. These are the ones you want the tiger to target first, as you will surely lose a t-34 or 2 (BTW, 2 t34/76s cost less than 1 tiger, so it is acceptable loss). Swarm them close on the tiger's flanks. If you start wide, aim the endpoints to get closer to the tiger as they move in on the flanks. You do this because the tiger's turret rate is slow, and the closer you get, the more the turret has to turn to reach you once it has nailed the decoy t34(s) approaching from the front (the timing takes skill and practice). Make the flanking t-34 waypoints go well past the tiger, so that they cannot possibly reach them during the turn, but will likely be close beside the tiger, or towards the back-side flanks. The reason you move "fast" throughout the turn is to avoid the "cowering" problem we all know about, while getting that initial "aim" on the tiger setup. It is not perfect, but I have only seen them stop from "cowering" ONCE (in many, many attempts!). At the beginning of the next turn, STOP the "fast" movement order. The t-34/76s with tungsten will already have a decent "aim" on the tiger from the prior turn, so when they "stop" immediately the beginning of this turn, they will fire the tungsten on the FIRST shot, and almost always kill the tiger on the first shot, if not, the second. They will not "cower" under these conditions, I promise.

Granted you need "hordes" of t-34/76s to do this . . . at least 4 per tiger, preferably 6, expecting to lose 2. Terrain, and an infinite variety of other variables can make it a folly tactic (i.e. hidden enemy AT assets covering the tiger). But if you know what you're doing, and conditions are right, (you can almost always find a way to make this work if you're clever, unless the terrain is completely open) it will work!

This also works with t34/85s, but they are more expensive than the t34/76 until late-war, so the "hordes" are a little more difficult to achieve, and the losses less acceptable. Besides, you have many more options with commie armor in the last 12months of the war. In early '44, I'll take 76s with tungsten over the 85s any day. If rarity was off, I'd take 76s over 85s in MAY '45 (god I love that canister, and obscene HE load!)

Lastly, you can also do this with t34/76 that do not have tungsten, but you've got to get in REALLY close on the flanks (under 100 meters, preferable 30 or less). Much more dangerous, and cowering becomes more and more likely as shot bounce off the tiger.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Walpurgis

[ April 23, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[gorgias]

Sorry for no replying before....easter holidays

Well the soviets had in war about 22 millions of casualties the most of them civilian people (about a 50%-60% i have read)

The germans had about 12 millions of casualties, the 80% in east front more or less. They had the most lot of civilians killed in the allied city bombardements and the last war. But in almost all the war they hadnt civilians killed in east front. If u calculate lightly u see that this means a relation of casualties about 1 to 2 or 1 to 3 as maximum. In any way if we admite that the russians were killed greatly we would have to conclude that obviously the soviet inf. at least must be a lot of cheaper than now is.

In the other hand.... a lot of T34s to kill tigers..?? WoW really an original answer. Really there is some way now to kill a german tank that using and "suiciding" a lot of russians tanks of course...including using 20 T70s vs a tiger u can disable "amazingly"!!!!

We conclude then that the cost of a tiger must be equivalent to at least 3 T34s? Well if u tell me not to this point i must take the triple of points playing russians that when i am playing germans really is a absolutely upstanding solution!!!!!

An idea better..... i´ll take 10 times more points!!!!! hehehehe sure it´ll be easy.

Only a trouble..... the IA cannot kill my tigers how i can not set 5 times more points for it. No for it kills the cats..but my tigers run out its amunnition.....

The soviet tungs is a lot of times unusable... why....?? simple the IA use it stupidly a lot of times.... i have been a lot of times to 150 meters rear of a tiger and my T34 76 doesnt use its tung. In another times the T34 simplely reverse fearing the rear of tiger hehehe....

[walpurgis nacht]

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not? You shouldn't be . . .it is a very effective way, works virtually every time if done right, and is the most cost-effective way.

Consider this:

A "regular experience" platoon (3) of t-34/76s in Sept '43 with standard rarity is 291 points

A single "regular experience" tiger is 263 points.

That means even if you lose 2 t34s, you still made your opponent spend more points. It is an even more reasonable exchange if you consider that 1 t34/76 with canister, is equal to 2-3 tigers for killing infantry, and roughly equal to 2 IS-2s for killing infantry.

The t34/76, with tungsten, is a far better solution than wasting lots of points on expensive, far less diverse, IS-2s, with slow ROF. And anyway, head-to-head the IS-2 will almost certainly lose to the tiger.

Take 2 IS-2s in Sept '44, regular experience. They cost 359 points, JUST FOR TWO. And THAT's the early model which is cheaper, with VERY SLOW ROF. Totally worthless bang for buck. You want the middle model IS-2s that still have SLOW ROF, that will cost you 431 points . . .you can almost buy 5 t34/76s for that price!!!

And you mentioned some problems with t34 firing tungsten? strange, it works every time, and very well for me. The only thing I can think of is that you are too far away if it won't fire tungsten. If you are over 150 meters away, you shouldn't be engaging tigers with t34s anyway.

[ April 23, 2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Jason I havent experienced any of this I lose PzKpfw IV H's to front hull penetrations to T-34-76s out to 1400m.

I'd like to see that.

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: 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.

I'd like to see that.

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: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.

Are you talking about CMBB?

[ April 23, 2003, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

Are you talking about CMBB?

No i'm talking about another game, but thought I would just post here, instead of their .

Regards, John Waters

[ April 23, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[walpurgis nacht]

Pzkpfw I, you have said, "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."

I just ran a test to help you better understand. 15 pzIVH's again 15 t34/76 (late model). 1400 meters. no one is hull down. all regular experience.

turn 1) 9 dead t-34, 0 dead panzer IVs

turn 2) all t-34s dead, no dead panzers

So maybe you should save your " ", for something you are right about.

[gorgias]

Sorry Walpurgis i dont want to be sarcastic only joke.... i dont write very well in english and for that many times i am not especially subtile

As u say is in september when the T34 have tung. ammunition and no every tank has if u buy them in plts (so they are cheaper). They usually carry 1 or 2 pieces of ammunition what means that u need a lot of luck to hit with a tung. shoot. Think that the low soviet accuracy needs a minimum of 2-3 shoots to hit a target included closed ranges (300 m or less) a lot of times......

The cost of 3 T34 is similar but not equivalent the game doesnt tolerate 1 point more than allowed..... so if u have 2000 points to purchase they are 2000 points and no 2001. I mean that whith the cost of a tiger u can buy only 2 T34 no more.... with that 2 T34 u have to close to 100-150 meters of a tiger.... well the tiger doesnt fight alone... others tanks or inf. can support it. So if the terrain is very (VERY) favourable to soviets maybe u can fight tigers to close range...if not u die without shoot them 1 time.

Before sept. 43 no tung. is available....

I always speaked about tigers... but the really curious is that the T34 is an easy target too for PzIVh and STUg when i always had read that it wasnt so... in equal conditions almost ever the german tanks have a lot of advantages except the speed.... Of course in scenaries of 2x2 Km2 this caracteristic is secundary.... so as i see the game is seriously disbalanced for germans...

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

I just ran a test to help you better understand. 15 pzIVH's again 15 t34/76 (late model). 1400 meters. no one is hull down. all regular experience.

turn 1) 9 dead t-34, 0 dead panzer IVs

turn 2) all t-34s dead, no dead panzers

So maybe you should save your " ", for something you are right about.

And this test was suposed to prove what? how many rounds were fired? how many broke up? how many hits to KO the T-34 in each test, what was crew exp?, weather conditions?.

As I said, I havn't had any of the problems killing PzKpfw IVs frontaly you have. In my observations the 75L/48 failed routinely vs the T-34/76 M1943 glacis & TF from 1200 - 1400m.

If I had, seen any thing suspicious, as I said, I would have brought it up to Charles & Steve & the rest of the CMBB group.

As to the I though it properly reflected te tone of your post.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 23, 2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[walpurgis nacht]

PzKpfw, you ask, "what does my test prove?" Oh brother . . . . at this point I think you're just trying to be argumentative. I don't know how to make this any more simple for you.

You said, "The PzKpfw IVH fails to penetrate the T-34-76's armor above 1200m."

You are wrong, incorrect, this is not true, nope, nada, simply inaccurate, absolutly not right.

In 2 turns, 15 panzerIVHs KNOCKED OUT, from the front hull, 15 t-34/76, at 1400 meters! 1400 meters! 1400 meters! get it now?

[ April 23, 2003, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

You are wrong, incorrect, this is not true, nope, nada, simply inaccurate, absolutly not right.

Walp I'm not going to argue with you, if feeling I'm lying makes you feel better, so be it.

I obviously, have not had the same results you have had, or we would not be haveing this discussion. If I thought for an instance, that T-34's were being penetrated ahistoricly, or their armor was undermodeled I would have looked into it, its that simple.

In 2 turns, 15 panzerIVHs KNOCKED OUT, from the front hull, 15 t-34/76, at 1400 meters! 1400 meters! 1400 meters! get it now?

I never said the L/43/L/48 could not penetrate the T-34-76 @ 1200 - 1400m. I have seen 7.5cm Kw.K 40 L/43/L48 failures vs the T-34-76 M1943 FH starting @ ranges from 1200m in one example.

Are you telling me in your experience the L/43/L48 kills the T-34-76 above 1200m on the first hit, every single time?.

You could also set up your test save it at the start & send it to BTS. Or you could post results here includeing the following data:

- How many rounds were fired.

- How many hits, were recorded.

- How many penetrated w/hit location

- How many hits failed, richochet, partial, etc

- Range of engagements

- Results KO'd tanks etc.

Ie, Tiger E vs IS-2 range 68m:

1. Front hull hit shell broke up.

1. front turret hit shell richochet.

1. Front turret penetration.

1. Front turret penetration.

1. Front upper hull richochet.

1. Front upper hull hit richochet.

Tiger E destroyed by 1st hit from IS-2.

2 Tiger E vs 1 IS-2 range 56 - 66m:

1. Side upper hull at weak point penetration.

1. Side turret penetration.

1. Track hit.

1. Side turret penetration.

1. 1 Side turret penetration, IS-2 knocked out.

With that information we have something to start with.

Historicly 7.5cm Kwk. 40 L/43/48 was very successful vs the T-34 as the 7.5cm Kw.K 40 L/43/48 was superior the the T-34-76's 76.2mm F-34 41.5. Ie,:

At ranges up to 1200m , the T-34 is cleany penetrated at every angle that it is hit by the Pzgr.39 fired from the 7.5cm Kw.K.40 L/43.

The 31st Pz Regt of the 5th Pz Division reported on the effectiveness of the two main type of ammuntion used in the 7.5cm Kw.K40 L/43.:

Between 22nd Febuary and 20 March 1943 four Pz IV lang claimed 17 KW-I , 26 T-34s , 1 T-26 , 1 Mark III and 1 General Lee. it took between 2-3 shots at a range of 1200-1600m to knock out each of the tanks when firing Pzgr.39 . Each hit set the tank on fire and destroyed it. When firing Gr.HL/B one to five shots were needed per tank and they seldom caught fire.

Playing an QB I have seen 7.5cm L/48 failures starting @ 1237m , while the T-34-76 repeatedly penetrated the PzKpfw IV H DFP from 1342m & front turret @ 1406m.

In one example a T-34-76 @ 1127m hit one PzKpfw IVH, 6 times 4 were partial DFP/lower hull penetation/break ups, 1 took out the gun, 1 penetrated the DFP & destroyed the PzKpfw IV.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 24, 2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Ron]

I setup a quick and dirty test myself, not with the detail John mentioned but just to get a feel for the engagement.

Test 1

15 T-34 76(Late) vs 15 PzIVH, range 1300m flat, all Plt COs had one 'heart'. Ran 5 times.

Results after one minute:

10 T-34s KO'd - 2 PzIVHs KO'd

11 T-34s KO'd - 1 PzIVH KO'd

12 T-34s KO'd - 3 PzIVHs KO'd

15 T-34s KO'd - 0 PzIVHs KO'd

12 T-34s KO - 2 PzIVHs KO'd

The 75 L/48 penetrated almost always, with only the odd Front Turret riccochet. The TacAI for the T-34s clearly didn't care for the odds as quite a few attempted to retreat, lessening the PzIVH losses and increasing their own.

Test 2

15 T-34 76(Late) vs 15 PzIVH, both hulldown, range 1300m flat, all Plt COs had one 'heart'. Ran 5 times.

Results after one minute:

1 T-34 KO'd - 2 PzIVHs KO'd

0 T-34s KO'd - 3 PzIVHs KO'd

2 T-34s KO'd - 2 PzIVHs KO'd

0 T-34s KO'd - 5 PzIVHs KO'd

1 T-34 KO'd - 3 PzIVHs KO'd

Interesting this time as almost all of the T-34s stayed to fight, while it was the PzIVHs who were retreating much more frequently. The lethality of the 75 L/48 was markedly reduced, with most hits being Front Turret/Upper Hull riccochets.

Ron

[Cogust]

Doing these tests by letting the tanks fight a duel and then count the numbers of destroyed tanks on both sides aren't worthwhile IMO as there are lots of other factors apart from penetration figures that influence the outcome.

The hit percentage and the ROF are very important, the more shots fired and the more hits you get from them, the more likely you are to win the duel. Pz IVs have better optics and their shells have higher velocity, this give the German tanks higher hit chances than the Russian tanks (the silhouette is pretty much the same 94 vs 93). Add to this the fact that a Pz IV on average will fire more often than a T-34 and the results will definitely show more killed T-34s than killed Panzer IVs.

The test should be made in such a way that one side has no ammo and then count the number of HITS it takes for the other side to knock it out. To stop tanks from fleeing you will obviously have to put them in terrain they can move in, rough would be ideal. This way you will get a test which you can measure the thing you're after, the above tests does not measure the relative gun penetrations at all as it's heavily skewed in favour of the Panzer IV due to better optics and higher ROF.

[Cogust]

I did a quick test with eight T-34 M43's firing AP on eight PzIV G's that were sitting still and not firing back.

Results at 1405-1407 meters with 0 angle, the year is 1942:

3 Front Lower Hulls, all ricochets.

10 Front Upper Hull, all ricochets

15 Turret hits, 3 full penetrations and 12 partial.

Seems to me that 50mm@11 cannot resist the 76mm gun while the 50+30@10-12 consistently can. Also not that about half the hits are to the turret where you can be pretty certain to achieve at least a partial penetration.

[Cogust]

Reversed the above test and got this when the PzIV's were firing:

1 Track hit, immobilized

3 Lower hull hit, all penetration.

16 Upper hull hits, 1 ricochet, 8 full penetrations and 7 partial

3 turret hits, 1 ricochet, 1 full penetration and 1 partial

Notable is that the hits are not distributed equally, this might be because of my small sample size but it could also mean that the tanks are aiming for the weak areas.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Cogust:

Reversed the above test and got this when the PzIV's were firing:

16 Upper hull hits, 1 ricochet, 8 full penetrations and 7 partial

So the T-34-76 glacis resisted 50% of PzGr.39 hits in you tests this is consistant with Lorrin's (Rexford) past posts that read:

75L43 APCBC penetrates T34 glacis on half the hits at 1400m

Which is also on par with some reports in Jentz' Panzer Truppen vol. 1.

Lorrin's past posts also indicated T34 45mm armor loses 24% of it's effective armor resistance, vs 7.5cm Kw.K 40 PzGr.39 APCBC.

Which is consistant with the British & US reports anlayss of the T-34-76 M1942 armor. Ie, the T-34's armor 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 resistance vs repeated impacts in the same area of an penetration, whole pieces of armor would shatter. Their are reports of the T-34-76 drivers hatches being blown off by impacts on the lower glacis etc.

An example from the WAL report on the T-34-76/KV-1 armor reads:

3. The armor componets of the Medium Tank T-34 were heat treated to very high hardness levels (429 - 495 Brinnell) probably in an attempt to obtain maximum resistance to penetration even at the expense of structural stability under ballistic attack. The componets of the Heavy Tank KV-1 were heat treated to hardnesses more nearly approaching American practice (285 - 321 Brinnell).

BHN comparison US armor vs Russian armor, Russian BHN in ( )'s:

5/8" Hard rolled homogeneous - 360-390 (495)

3/4" Rolled homogeneous - 310 - 350 (429)

1-1/4" Rolled homogeneous - 280 - 320 (321)

1-7/8" - 2" Rolled homogeneous - 260 - 290 (444 - 461)

2" - 2-3/8" cast homogeneous - 235 - 270 (444 - 495)

3-5/8" - 4" cast homogeneous - 200 - 230 (285 - 293)

Another example comes from Dimitry Loza:

I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 24, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.

John, a lot of the Soviet tanker memoirs that I own refer to the soldiers being injured by splinters from the armour when it is struck by non-penetrating hits. Tanks that come to mind where this is referred to are T-34, T-26 and KV-1. Just some more evidence of that.

[gorgias]

"Artillery was the main weapon of the Red Army. Not all Russian cannon types could penetrate Tiger's armor, but concentrating the fire of all possible guns on the tanks could heavily damage them, even to the point of stopping the engine or detonating the ammunition. The 76.2mm ZIS-3 cannon, using anti-tank shells, could penetrate Tiger side armor (at 300-400 meters) or destroy the running gear, while it couldn't penetrate the frontal armor. Because of poor maneuverability, the Tiger could be an easy target for an anti-tank gun in defense. Only the 85mm anti-aircraft gun and especially 122mm A-19 cannon could destroy the Tiger at extended ranges. The Soviets made many anti-tank guns, up to 100mm in bore diameter, by the end of the war."

"During the famous tank battle near Prokhorovka, the Soviet commanders tried to take advantage of the greater mobility of the T-34 and the assault guns by closing in to short ranges and shooting at the Tiger's thinner side armor. The result of the battle was that the new German tanks were equal to older Soviet tanks because of the correct choice of the battlefield. This was the great maneuver of Gen. Col. Rotmistrov and Gen Leut. Zhadov. The battle ended with almost equal losses, but Soviets kept more tanks in reserve for the counterattack, while Germans were unable to continue with their offensive."

What do u think about this....? Lies..? Or right...?

[Andreas]

Err, should be rather obvious in the case of the latter quote. Anyone claiming equal losses at Prokhorovka should stop smoking whatever it is they are smoking. Rotmistrov's 5th TA got absolutely hammered by the Germans. Even Koniev in his memoirs makes reference to that. Where did you dig up that non-sense?

Zetterling/Anders: Tank losses have often been described as equally severe for both sides but this does not match the reality. The German losses in destroyed tanks were very small compared to the losses suffered by the Red Army. The II SS-Panzer Corps lost 36 tanks and assault guns between 5 and 23 July of which at least 19 were destroyed before Prokhorovka. Accordingly, the II SS-Panzer Corps cannot have lost more than 17 during Prokhorovka.

The III Panzer Corps, which had less armour than II SS-Panzer Corps, seems to have had higher losses. During the period from 11 to 20 July, it lost 37 tanks and assault guns, but not all units of the corps took part in the Prokhorovka battle.

Rotmistrov's 5th Guards Tank Army reported that it had lost 222 T-34, 89 T-70, 12 Churchill and 11 assault guns up to 16 July. These were total write-offs. This gives a total of 334 destroyed Soviet tanks and assault guns, which can be compared to, at most, 54 German tanks and assault guns destroyed. This means the Soviet tank losses were at least six times higher. In fact, since more German units are included in this calculation than actually took part in the Prokhorovka battle, while not all Soviet units are included, the real ratio was even higher.

Glantz/House: German armor losses in Citadel are more difficult to pin down.... Considering repaired armored vehicles, these figures indicate that [iI SS Panzer Corps] lost between 60 and 70 tanks on 12 July (at Prokhorovka).... (Note: Finally, during the battle for Prokhorovka, the 5th Guards Tank Army lost over 400 of its 840 tanks and self-propelled guns....)

Niepe: ...

The net loss from the number of operational tanks [of II. SS Panzerkorps]...was thus a total of 48 tanks [on 12 July]. The SS tank losses at Prochorovka were however, somewhat heavier than 48, the discrepancy almost surely resulting from the continual return of tanks to operational status after having been repaired from earlier damage. ...[A] rough estimate can be made that about 70-80 tanks were lost for the day by II. SS Panzerkorps.

...

However, Rotmistrov's army lost approximately 600-650 tanks on 12 July in actions against II. SS Panzerkorps as well as Breith's divisions [of III Panzerkorps]....

And the other side of the claims:

Soviet General Staff Study on Kursk: As a result of five days of combat, the Germans lost around 300 tanks [and] 20 self-propelled guns....

Dunn: Both sides had suffered heavy losses. The SS Panzer Corps claimed 249 Soviet tanks destroyed or captured on July 12.... A total of 200 tanks were lost by the 5th Guards Tank Army. General Pavel A. Rotmistrov estimated that each side lost 300 tanks, probably accurate for the Russians and high for the Germans.

All quotes cribbed from the review of Zetterling/Anders here

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by gorgias:

The 76.2mm ZIS-3 cannon, using anti-tank shells, could penetrate Tiger side armor (at 300-400 meters) or destroy the running gear, while it couldn't penetrate the frontal armor.

As has been stated before, In the 2 Soviet live fire tests vs the Tiger E armor conducted in April & September 1943, as well as excerpts from the Panther tests, concerning the Tiger E's immunity to the 76.2mm gun, the 76.2mm could not defeat the Tiger E armor at any range. Ie, :

The first Soviet LF trials vs the Tiger E were conducted on April 25 - 30th 1943 by NIIBT @ Kubinka, the F-34 76L/41.5 could not defeat the 80mm Tiger E side hull/turret armor at even 200m. The only Soviet gun that defeated the Tiger E armor was the 85mm M1939 AA gun.

In the September trials vs the Tiger E with the following guns:

ZIS-3

F-22USV

F-34

PaK-36®

57mm M1 gun

85mm obr.1941 AT gun.

At ranges of 500 - 600m @ 0^ & @ 30^ not 1 gun defeated the Tiger E side hull/turret armor. Next range was 0^ @ 100m, again all guns failed. The only 2 Soviet guns that defeated the Tiger E side hull/turret armor was 57mm obr.1941 gun (ZIS-2) and 85mm obr.1941 AT gun. Both guns obtained partial penetrations, & penetrations on the 80mm side armor @ 500m @ 0^. only by useing

"improved round"s. None of the Soviet guns were able to defeat the Tiger E frontaly.

" The result of the battle was that the new German tanks were equal to older Soviet tanks because of the correct choice of the battlefield. This was the great maneuver of Gen. Col. Rotmistrov and Gen Leut. Zhadov. The battle ended with almost equal losses, but Soviets kept more tanks in reserve for the counterattack, while Germans were unable to continue with their offensive."

The II.SS.Pz.Korps consisting of 1st SS Pz.Gren. Div LAH, 2nd Pz.Gren.Div Das Riech, & 3rd SS Pz.Gren. Div Totenkopf, had a combined operational tank strength, on the evening of July 11 1943, of 273 tank/AG broken down as follows:

90 PzKpfw III 5 cm Kw.K L/60

80 PzKpfw IV 7.5 cm Kw.K L/43/48

15 T-34-76

16 Tiger E

72 Sturmgeschuetz 7.5cm L/43/48

Soviet tank strength on July 12 for 5th Guards Tank Army alone was 793* tanks broken down as follows:

501 T-34-76

264 T-70

31 Churchill.

*See Healy Mark. Kursk 1943 p.80

5th Guards Tank Army losses @ Prokhorovka were 408 - 432 tank/SU* II. SS.Pz Korps losses were 40 - 60 AFVs**.

*See: Glantz David M, House Jonathan The Battle of Kursk p.341

**ibid. p.275

Does this sound like 'almost equal losses' to you Gorgias?. It's interesting as the Soviet General Staff study also states the Germans had 100 Tiger & Ferdinands + Panthers @ Prokhorovka. Quiet a few Russian paintings of the Prokhorovka battle show Tiger's & Panthers clashing head on with T-34s.

Soviet tank loss totals in various sources run from 330 - 500+. German loss totals in various sources run from 17 - 70 tank/AG. What we do know from strength returns is thet the II SS. Pz Corps as of the evening of July 13, had 251 tank/AG operational.

The II SS Pz.Korps severley mauled the 5th GTA & supporting elements from 5th Guards Mechanized Korps @ Prokhorovka.

As an example Soviet records show that most of

5th GTA tank formations were rebuilt, right after Prokhorovka, Ie, it took the rest of the month to rebuild the 18th Tank Corps that had lost *1/3rd of its 222 tanks on the 12-13th.

*See: Dunn Walter S. Kursk p.158

The 29th Tank Corps lost *60% out of its 222 tanks, of its tanks on the 12 - 13th. It took till the last 2 weeks of July to rebuild, repairaing an averege of 20 tanks a day. 2nd Guards Tank Corps was pulled out of the line into STAVKA reserves, & rebuilding took until August 15 1943.

*ibid. p.158

Regards, John Waters

[ April 25, 2003, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I think one valid point has been raised which might bear further research. Have there ever been any reports from the Soviet side (or German come to think of it) that deal with the Stug III F & G models being virtually impervious to 76.2 mm rounds from the frontal aspect during the 1942 to 1943 period? I would have thought that continual inability to penetrate frontal Stug armour (which were pretty common German types of AFV's by then) would have caused some sort of official acknowledgement and consternation at the time.

My simple logic is that if no such reports exist regarding this problem then possibly the modelling in CMBB is a bit awry when T34's & 76.2 mm AT guns are simply unable to penetrate the frontal aspect of Stugs even if within 100 metres. If there are such reports dealing with the virtual imperviousness of frontal Stug III F & G armour at the time then you can safely ignore my hypothesis.

Regards

Jim R.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I think one valid point has been raised which might bear further research. Have there ever been any reports from the Soviet side (or German come to think of it) that deal with the Stug III F & G models being virtually impervious to 76.2 mm rounds from the frontal aspect during the 1942 to 1943 period?

StuG with FH srmor or straight 80mm StuG is basicly immune to the F-34 76.2mm L/41.5 frontaly. Unless the T-34-76 was below 600m & had BR-350P sub-calibre ammunition.

I would have thought that continual inability to penetrate frontal Stug armour (which were pretty common German types of AFV's by then) would have caused some sort of official acknowledgement and consternation at the time.

It did cause official acknowledgement and consternation at the time, it took the form of an special order , note this concerns the 7.5cm L/24 armed StuGs Ie,:

Order No.259 dated December 27, 1942 Signed by Commander of the Western Front General Konev.

The enemy has widely used self-propelled guns (StuG.) with main characteristics:

1.The gun is installed on the chassis of the middle tank;

2. Caliber 75 mm;

3. The horizontal sector of fire is limited;

4. The armor is on the front and on the sides, the rear and top parts are opened.

1. General Principe of the employment (from the captured instructions of the German Army).

The battalion can reach its full fighting ability only if it is used all at once. The Germans think that the best in the advancing battle is the close formation, in which all 22 guns are commanded by the battalion commander and are used in close co-operation with the infantry regiment at the main direction of the attack. If this is impossible, for example, in defense, the battery still retains the close formation. The battalion might be split only down to platoons, each having a separate task.

The general principle of employment is following:

on the smooth terrain StuG.'s might take forward position in front of the infantry. On the terrain, partly covered with the natural obstacles, the infantry keeps close to the guns, while on the terrain fully covered with obstacles (forest, cities, etc.) the infantry takes the forward position.

a) At the breaking fortified defense lines

The companies take positions in depth. Miners are assigned to the first line. The fire of the second echelon backs up the actions of the first echelon.

In offense against unfortified defense:

The unit is positioned in columns along the front line. On the open terrain, self-propelled guns take forward position. On the terrain with limited visibility, the guns move in 300-500 m behind the infantry. The places with possible anti-tank defense are fired upon preventively even without defined targets.

c) In the defense:

The battery takes the position with crew in the machines or near them. The commanding officer is with the commanding officer of the infantry unit defending the sector. Depending on the tactical situation, the battery is moved to the direction of the possible breakthrough for counter-attack.

The shooting at our tanks T-34 and KV is effected very carefully, by concentrating fire of a few guns on the selected target from the distances less than 300 m. The fire of separate guns from the distances more than 300 m is ineffective.

Recommendations on the fighting enemy's self-propelled guns

2. Fighting the self-propelled artillery of the enemy:

We have enough AT means in our disposal for the destruction of the German self-propelled guns, the main being the artillery of all caliber. If the battle is duly organized the directions and areas of possible attack of German self-propelled guns can be predicted with the sufficient precision.

The following basics should be applied in combat:

In the defense:

a) If our troops are at the prepared defense positions, the most effective will be the strike of the first and second echelon of the German guns. The second echelon is to be hit first by our guns at the closed and hidden positions. This is to secure the successful actions of our AT guns at the front line, which are to deal with the first line of German tanks.

With the advance of the German s.-p. guns closer than 1.5 km to our positions, they are to be eliminated by front line AT guns, while the guns at the closed positions cut the German infantry from the machines.

In the defense at the unprepared position it should be noted that the German guns will move in front of the infantry.

Our guns should engage the enemy before he would move in the close. Mobile AT reserve must be formed to act of the possible directions of the breakthrough.

After the breaking through our lines, all AT means, including hand grenades, are to be applied for the destruction of the German guns.

c) In the offensive actions the enemy s.-p. guns must be destroyed at their positions.

Special batteries shall be tasked with counter-battery actions. The batteries shall be assigned with clearly visible sector. The directions of the possible enemy actions must be determined in advance and firing solutions are to be determined by the commanding officers. Subject to the tactical situation the training shooting shall be performed.

In the actions inside the depth of the enemy positions, special guns (batteries) are assigned to the infantry. They take position in front of the infantry or/and at the flanks and are to be always ready for the fighting s.-p. guns.

Tanks KV and T-34 act mostly from the ambush. The assigned to the task tanks are positioned in front of the infantry or the other tanks, or/and at the flanks. Each is assigned with clearly defined sector and shall be ready to open fire at any moment.

AT rifles are effective by the shooting at the sides of self-propelled guns from 500 m or closer. AT teams take forward position or/and at the flanks.

In capturing a city, town or a village, the imperative is to secure the presence of AT means among the forward troops, as the enemy will apply self-propelled guns to restore the situation.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 25, 2003, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

An interesting report John but I don't think it really addresses the issue of the imperviousness of late model Stug frontal armour to 76.2 mm AT rounds. You mentioned that the Stug's were in fact impervious to the 76.2 mm gun except for the "sub-calibre" round but where did you obtain this information from? One final question if I may, from when was the tungsten round commonly available for the 76.2 gun if you happen to know this information?

Based on what your saying, it seems that the T34/76 will not be able to tackle the Stug frontally until tungsten became readily available. However, I thought I read somewhere that the gradual improvement in round quality from the early years of the war meant that the standard AT round for the T34 was sufficient to penetrate 80mm of armour from early 1943 onwards yet we're not seeing this in CMBB. Does this situation co-incide with your reference material?

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Jim R.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by gorgias:

"During the famous tank battle near Prokhorovka... The battle ended with almost equal losses

*sigh*

[ April 25, 2003, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

An interesting report John but I don't think it really addresses the issue of the imperviousness of late model Stug frontal armour to 76.2 mm AT rounds.

Jim what is the main method of dealing with the StuG in that report?. AT-guns & artillery, no where does that order advocate useing tanks vs StuG's except from ambush positions. The special

order is interesting, as it shows just how much a threat the Soviets felt the StuG was.

You mentioned that the Stug's were in fact impervious to the 76.2 mm gun except for the "sub-calibre" round but where did you obtain this information from? One final question if I may, from when was the tungsten round commonly available for the 76.2 gun if you happen to know this information?

From armor penetration data & various discussions on this very topic, with Kip, etc. the opinion was the F-34 76.2mm could not defeat the StuG with add on/FH armor, or with the vanila 80mm unless under 600m useing BR-350P.

76.2mm BR-350P becomes available for the T-34-76 after Kursk in late 1943 IIRC.

Based on what your saying, it seems that the T34/76 will not be able to tackle the Stug frontally until tungsten became readily available. However, I thought I read somewhere that the gradual improvement in round quality from the early years of the war meant that the standard AT round for the T34 was sufficient to penetrate 80mm of armour from early 1943 onwards yet we're not seeing this in CMBB. Does this situation co-incide with your reference material?

Soviet ammunition until late 43 early 44 suffered from poor quality, this significantly affected its performance, it actualy pentrated less then Soviet wartime pentration data sugests

Valera brings this point up on RBF.

I can't realy comment as I'm still searching for material on this, sifting thru AARs etc. What I can add is the reason given for the PzKpfw IV armor being increased from 50 to 80mm thru the use of add on 30mm plate,(or later produced with 80mm).

Was because the British *6pdr(57mm) could defeat the 50mm frontal armor out to 1000m, & the 80mm armor rectified this according to German reports.

I can find no refrence to the eastren front guns haveing any impact on the decision to increase the PzKpfw IV/StuG armor to 80mm.

*See: Spielberger Walter J. Panzer IV & its Variants p.59

Regards, John Waters

[ April 25, 2003, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Order No.259 dated December 27, 1942 Signed by Commander of the Western Front General Konev.

Note the date on this order. Konev commanded the failed attempt to eliminate the Rzhev salient from the east during operation Mars.

In the Vazuza battles, short-barreled Stugs attached to one of the defending infantry divisions were the single largest tank killer by a wide margin in the sector defended by the division.