Big Cat vulnerability + ISs vs. Tigers

[Andreas]

Oh, and send me an email too, you hermit.

All the best

Andreas

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

German Claim system is very simialr to the VVS one. both required verifcation by someone other than the Shooter, other pilots ground troops aircraft wearage. OKL also rounded down claims by 50% intially before investigating/verfying a confirmed kill.

That is directly at odds with the Golodnikov interview linked to above.

Originally posted by Bastables:

Let's look at Kursk the defensive phase as STAVAK knew it and operation Zitedlle as the OKW knew it.

Luftwaffe 1 Air Division 5-15 july: 94 losses

VIII Aircorp 5-15 july: 99 losses

OKL recived 923 victory claims for the 5-15 July period.

VVS losses in the Kursk area 5-8 july : 566

VVS recived claims for 5-8 july of 878 victory claims

note the vast discrepency of kills claimed before anbody investigates.

SO is right (much as it pains me to say that), you need to subtract out losses to non-combat and AAA/other ground forces before being able to make a straight comparison of claims vs. losses.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever investigated German AAA claims on the eastern front (or anywhere else for that matter). I have been led to believe that they claimed roughly similar numbers as the pilots. Which would mean that together they probably destroyed twice as many planes as the VVS ever fielded.

All the best

Andreas </font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

SO is right (much as it pains me to say that),

Sorry - I'll try not to do this in the future.

Jason is also right to only look at the losses admitted by each side IMO. Sadly such figures often seem difficult to come by with the number of claims receiving front page coverage.

[John Kettler]

Bastable and Stalin's Organist,

Has either of you looked at the relevant aviation articles from VIZh on the Red Army Studies site? I did a quick skim and found a bunch of stuff on Russian aviation there, covering both defensive ops like Stalingrad and some of the great sweeping offensives later on.

Also, does Krivosheev have anything on VVS losses in his book?

Regards,

John Kettler

[rum]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

In my opinion, Soviet tanks in CM all suffer because they are underrated viz. German tanks, and the biggest sufferer is the Stalin.

Good post, Bigduke6.

I'd wrote this couple times, and I'd repeat again:

Its not the Soviet/German disbalance, its one major flaw in the armor vulnarability of the CM engine.

While CM engine does shine in the kinetic energy penetration/damage model (no doubt, i consider it the best from all the games i saw), it does absolutely ignores the effect of non-penetrating HE explosion on the tank.

The simple test that everyone could perform himself in the Scenario Editor:

Take a small field, one german "heavy armor" like Ferdinand and one soviet "large caliber" (anything with 152 mm). Make both units facing each other and immobile (like putting em in forest terrain). Remove all ammo from german vehicle and leave only HE rounds in soviet vehicle. Crew must not be conscripts.

Launch the scenario and hit "Go".

You would see how 152mm HE rounds would hit opponent armor without any effect, until a gun shot or track shot. The CM damage model consider the non-penetrating hits like absolutely harmless until they hit something predesigned like cannon or tracks.

You might see how dozens of 50 kilogramm 152mm HE shells fireworking on the armor plate, without any negative effect on the vehicle and its crew. Only in case of "gun damage" and/or "immobilization" crew would deside to bail out.

In the real life, like many accounts write, even a single non-penetrating 122mm HE hit could cause engine shut-down, pipes rupture, internal armor flaking, crew shock/disorientation or even incapasitation...

[rum]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

There are numerous gaps in my knowledge of this topic, but even so, I feel pretty safe in asserting the following: a) the Germans had more top aces, arbitrarily defining the term as meaning men with 50 or more kills and despite overall population size differences, more aces period.

Its a common situation of all axis/allies split.

Germany, Finland, Japan had much more fighter aces then their opponents.

But growing the personal kill numbers does not win the air war, like history shows...

[Andreas]

I just read an entry in Fliegerkorps VIII KTB during or after the battle of Kursk, where a Hauptmann in a Stuka formation had his 800th (eighthundredth) combat mission.

After how many missions were Typhoon pilots allowed to stop flying?

All the best

Andreas

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

The first part of your post doesn't particularly shock me, seeing as how the Hauptmann could've been flying since Poland or if part of Legion Kondor, the Spanish Civil War, but the second part seems like a John D. Salt question if ever I saw one.

Just for grins and giggles, though, what assumptions are we making about the Typhoon pilots? Are we talking newly minted ones fresh from flight school, then the OCU, or are we talking about pilots who, say, converted from the Hurribombers or the later MkIID with the 40mm cannon? If the former, then we can confidently limit such missions to being no earlier than August 1942 as part of the Dieppe raid, per this site, and from what I can tell, the more familiar rocket armed configuration really didn't show up until D-Day operationally.

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon.html

The various ground attack Hurricanes and their intro dates are covered here. The earliest operational date for a Hurribomber pilot would be October 1941 and much later for other versions.

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/hurrcane.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

Struck gold! According to this remarkable historical article, the length of an RAF fighter pilot's tour of duty was a year. There is much here which is highly pertinent to this discussion, including explicit naming of several German pilots

who had Legion Kondor experience and also of a Polish contingent with extensive combat experience predating the all but unknown Squadron Leader Lance C. Wade, who flew first Hurricanes and later Spitfires, tragically dying in an accident (or maybe sabotaged plane) after completing his second tour. Terrific story!

http://historynet.com/ahi/bllancewade/index.html

Per this site, in 1941 combat tours for RAF bomber crews were 30 missions or 200 combat hours, after which 6 months were spent in a flying training establishment.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWraf.htm

Excerpt 15, though, from the above site, defines the rules RAF wide in 1943

(15) The Air Ministry published a list of rules for RAF aircrew on 8th May 1943.

Bomber Command: first tour, 30 sorties; second tour, not more than 20 sorties.

Pathfinder Force: a single continuous tour of 45 sorties.

Fighter Command: Day Fighters, normal maximum 200 hours. Night Fighters, 100 hours or a maximum of 18 months.

Coastal Command: Flying boats and four-engined land-plane crews, 800 hours. Photographic Reconnaissance squadrons, 300 hours. Fighter, torpedo and other squadrons employed offensively, 200 hours.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 23, 2006, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Andreas and JasonC,

Here's a Russian female fighter pilot's account of air combat in Lend-Lease Spitfires with two of her sister pilots, one the White Rose, also in the fight. It's greatly enhanced by use of an air combat computer game to supply fabulous visuals illustrating what's being described in the narrative.

http://www.simhq.com/_air2/air_078b.html

That, though, was merely the appetizer. Here's the extremely rich main course, where we learn that most of the Russian aces in PVO and VVS (numbering in the hundreds to my surprise) fought continuously throughout the war. Never heard of this book! Covers the Russian Rudel counterparts, too.

http://stonebooks.com/archives/980920.shtml

Here's a detailed interview with the top Allied ace of the war, Kozhedub

http://www.historynet.com/ahi/bl-ivan-kozhedub/

Some got blooded earlier

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/sovietorderofbattle.htm

Here's Pokryshkin's bio and a most valuable discussion of Russian fighter tactics and organization. Turns out part of the Russian problem was that the field regs prescribed an awkward three plane fighting section, rather than the more fluid German two ship, introduced by Molders in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. It was Pokryshkin who ultimately got this changed. Near the bottom we find another pearl: Russian criteria for awarding aerial kills.

http://www.gallery-worldwide.com/cmItem.jsp?id=5044

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 23, 2006, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Guest Mike]

You guys should post some of this stuff in the DiF section - there's a Russian expansion pack due out in a couple of months.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Bastable and Stalin's Organist,

Has either of you looked at the relevant aviation articles from VIZh on the Red Army Studies site? I did a quick skim and found a bunch of stuff on Russian aviation there, covering both defensive ops like Stalingrad and some of the great sweeping offensives later on.

Also, does Krivosheev have anything on VVS losses in his book?

Regards,

John Kettler

Yes my VVS figures are taken from Kriv's work

[Guest Mike]

I had seen the REd army site but hadn't gotten around to getting back to it - I've stil got 150mb of downloaded PDF's to get through....

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

Isn't it great how so many wonderful topics aren't posted in HTML?!

(grimaces and grates teeth)

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Mike]

Yeah - just wonderful - these are scans of post WW2 articles written for the US military by German officers - 3-400 pages each IIRC, unsearchable 'cos they're pictures not "real" PDF....only 1 way to go through them.....

[mav1]

The armour of the Is 2 tank is too thin, than it realy was in ww2. The Is-2 had 160mm front turrent armour and 120mm upper hull armour. In cmbb the Is 2 has only 120mm front turrent armour.

Plus the fact that the is2 acts strangely in cmbb, means that in cmbb the Is2 is out classed by the panther tank. When in reality both tanks were equal.

One of the most strangest behavoir in cmbb is that of the Turan tank which charges forward and dosn't fire it's gun.

[JasonC]

mav1 - Basically correct, the IS-2 is seriously undermodeled in CM, and its "cower" behavior in particular is laughable. Avoid using "hunt" and you can dispense with a lot of it, though. Use "shoot and scoot" to fire from short halts, instead.

But also, there are serious differences in the IS-2 models. The 1943 model has very low rate of fire (not historically justified IMO) and shouldn't even be used. The 1944 (early) model removes that, but leaves the same modeling of the upper hull as only 30 degree slope. This effectively halves the armor protection. Basically, an IS-2 model 1943 is a piece of German physics fiction and the IS-2 1944 early is pretty much the same.

The real ones appear in June 1944, the IS-2 model 1944. Those have 60 degree slope for the glacis, and an improved "round" for the turret. Do not conclude anything about the typical performance of these real IS-2s, from the performance of the neutered versions. The real ones are serious tanks. The glacis will bounce even long 88 shells at range.

If you make sure you have the right tank model, and use the right move orders (instead of the cower-triggering "hunt" command), you will get much more realistic performance from your IS-2s. Still under modeled in my opinion - in reality these were the best tanks of the war except for the King Tiger. Which was nearly twice the weight and produced in only a quarter the numbers etc.

The only other late war Russian AFV with useful armor is the SU-100, which appears only in the last six months. It is given enough front slope that its front armor bounces many hits, at longer range from stronger guns or from PAK40 strength guns at any range. Sides still vulnerable of course.

[ May 13, 2006, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[John Kettler]

JasonC and BFC,

With CMC on the way, it seems to me eminently logical that a patch be issued to address at least the known glaring deficiencies in CMBB (and presumably now also built into the CMC engine). I'm talking about demonstrably wrong (as in way short) ammo loads, incorrect armor thicknesses and slopes, apparent projectile modeling problems, etc. Fixing even these would be a big help, but it would be really nice to have multiturreted tanks, dust, and some key vehicles we didn't get the first time (for reasons of disc space) included. It would also be nice if we could get serious artillery (122, 152, 203 howitzer) for on board DF fire a la Battle of Berlin. FWIW, I still think Katyushas in DF should be included.

Regards,

John Kettler

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

JasonC and BFC,

With CMC on the way, it seems to me eminently logical that a patch be issued to address at least the known glaring deficiencies in CMBB (and presumably now also built into the CMC engine). I'm talking about demonstrably wrong (as in way short) ammo loads, incorrect armor thicknesses and slopes, apparent projectile modeling problems, etc. Fixing even these would be a big help, but it would be really nice to have multiturreted tanks, dust, and some key vehicles we didn't get the first time (for reasons of disc space) included. It would also be nice if we could get serious artillery (122, 152, 203 howitzer) for on board DF fire a la Battle of Berlin. FWIW, I still think Katyushas in DF should be included.

Regards,

John Kettler

I'm fairly sure the the authorities have stated that the only patches to CM:BB will be those absolutely necessary to make CMC work. That means no corrected armor values and such, and certainly no new units. I understand the "No new units" rule (it would be a pain, I guess), but I really think that there are some serious and simple changes to be made in certain areas, like those mentioned in this thread.

[JasonC]

I'd love to have correction tweaks for CMBB. It is far and away my favorite game, still, and easily the most play I've ever received for the price I paid years ago now.

I'd be happy to pay something for additional improvements to it. I think it would be a bit much to expect BTS to continue making tweaks years on and not get anything out of it, but if they wanted to charge $20 or something I'd be happy to pay, if the changes were extensive.

Here is a list of desirables -

CMAK style dust in CMBB would be wonderful.

Guns hittable on the fly, i.e. target size more than zero. Particularly important for behind-ridge placements.

Improved Russian ammo for 45mm early, for 85mm in 1943, or tone down the "broke up" mechanism across the board.

Change layered plate bonuses to small minuses, akin to 80% quality for the second plate. Would help with 30+50 uberStuGs and the like.

"Round" for T-34 turret considerably stronger.

Some chance of 50mm armor hit for StuGs fronts, perhaps via the "Round" model.

Marginally improve penetration of several Russian guns - 45mm at close range, especially later model; long 76mm by 5% or so; 85mm seriously in 1943 (ammo mostly).

IS-2s with proper front glacis from the begining, and thicker turret.

Somewhat reduced bogging in wet to mud conditions. (Right now, I have to tweak ground state up 1-3 levels over historical, and run out of room to discriminate dry from wet).

Slower fatigue from advance run etc in poor ground states. Slow it down instead of instantly tiring. Right now it forces all to use "move".

Reduce tank cower on hunt, all sides.

Reduce cover panic behavior when shot at in the open - trigger it only if the incoming fire is strong enough to pin.

Make bunkers stealthier - reduce range to spot by a factor of 2 or so - and reduce their abandonment chances for small AP hits. Instead those should have a reasonable chance of causing a casualty and panic.

If new units are possible, I'd like to see Russian gun bunkers containing long 76mm - the short ones are silly, and the existing unit could just be modified to put a ZIS-3 rather than an IG inside.

Tone down the infantry fire equivalent effects of very large HE. Its effect should plateau inside 10m (for 150 stuff) to 20m (for bombs e.g.)instead of continuing to spike (targets are spread, not 2mx2m points). Direct 150s particularly overmodeled right now (close placement, too large generous effect).

Make canister much more sensitive to cover, at a minimum. Or reduce its firepower equivalent effect.

I don't expect to see any of it, and even with remaining issues CMBB is the best computer wargame I've ever played. But we can dream.

[mav1]

I will have to use the IS3 instead of the IS2, just to make the change of giving the Russians an advantage.

But how did BFC get the IS2 armour so wrong. If you look at any military books or web sites, then it tells you the figures. Theres a great book on german afv by Chamberlin (I think thats the authors name)that BFC can use.

The other mistakes I can think of they did with armour protection was 100 instead of 110 for the Panther G and 82mm instead of 80mm for the Tiger.

Is the fire rate really so slow for 122 and 152mm Soviet armed tanks as they are in CMBB. I can have a nap or make the tea by the time they fire their guns.

Out of intrest why didn't the Soviets make a tank like the T54 in ww2 instead of wasting their time building the ISU122, ISU152 and T44.

Also where the T34/75 and KV1 not able to penetrate a TIgers armour in 1942 and 1943. Because when I use the TIger in a battle I romp to victory. It's rather boring because its too easy. All the battles supplied with CMBB between 1942 and 1943 with the Tiger Tank are like that.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by mav1:

The other mistakes I can think of they did with armour protection was 100 instead of 110 for the Panther G and 82mm instead of 80mm for the Tiger.

I wouldn't worry about the odd 2mm; German armour plate was not manufactured to such fine tolerances. And it hardly makes any difference compared with the accuracy with which any penetration model reflects Real Life anyway.

Originally posted by mav1:

Out of intrest why didn't the Soviets make a tank like the T54 in ww2 instead of wasting their time building the ISU122, ISU152 and T44.

The T44 is not all that unlike the T54. And they did try putting a 100mm in a T-34 turret, they just didn't adopt it for series production.

All the best,

John.

[zmoney]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'd love to have correction tweaks for CMBB. It is far and away my favorite game, still, and easily the most play I've ever received for the price I paid years ago now.

I'd be happy to pay something for additional improvements to it. I think it would be a bit much to expect BTS to continue making tweaks years on and not get anything out of it, but if they wanted to charge $20 or something I'd be happy to pay, if the changes were extensive.

I'd be more than happy to pay $20 or so for a patch that included all of this. They could set it up easily one would think. Like how people have ordered SC2 digitally I'm sure the same could be done for a patch.

I think this would be something easily fixed, like I can't imagine it would take more than a couple of months to put all of this on a patch. It would be easy money. Hopefully an admin is taking note and is thinking of doing something like this, maybe in time for the CMC release.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by zmoney:

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

I'd love to have correction tweaks for CMBB. It is far and away my favorite game, still, and easily the most play I've ever received for the price I paid years ago now.

I'd be happy to pay something for additional improvements to it. I think it would be a bit much to expect BTS to continue making tweaks years on and not get anything out of it, but if they wanted to charge $20 or something I'd be happy to pay, if the changes were extensive.

I'd be more than happy to pay $20 or so for a patch that included all of this. They could set it up easily one would think. Like how people have ordered SC2 digitally I'm sure the same could be done for a patch.

I think this would be something easily fixed, like I can't imagine it would take more than a couple of months to put all of this on a patch. It would be easy money. Hopefully an admin is taking note and is thinking of doing something like this, maybe in time for the CMC release. </font>

[Bigduke6]

I'd pay too, double the price of the game itself. And I see no chance of it happening.

Here is my favorite thing I would add to CMBB:

Make non-penetrating armor hits cause cumulative weakening, say by 2 per cent per 100 mm of shell. Thus if 100 per cent armor struck by 100mm shell bounces the shell, the armor's quality falls to 98 per cent. This would replicate the weakening of armor plate if you hammer it with shells.