Why do tanks get better when the germans capture them

[Cogust]

The tanks and ammo are the same, but the ammo isn't. IIRC captured T-34s fire German produced ammo that have better armour penetration characteristics, that the game is stacked against the Soviets is nonsense but you could argue that the T-34 gun is a bit undermodeled but that hasn't been conclusively proven yet.

[Bigduke6]

I am looking at the penetration tables listed on the vehicle when you look at the unit data. They are the same, both for the Soviet-crewed T-34/76 (43-late) and the very same vehicle, but with a German crew.

I access this by placing the cursor on the vehicle and then hitting return. I am using CMBB 1.03, and the experiement is set up in July 43.

I do indeed see significantly better performance for the captured German ZiS-3 AT gun, as compared the Soviet version. I do not see the same thing when comparing tanks.

Where do you see that advantage, Glider? Where are looking? I am not saying you're wrong, but I sure don't see what you saw.

To anticipate the direction of this thread a bit, what are the grounds for assuming a German-produced 76.2mm AP round performs better than a Soviet 76.2mm AP round? Especially the upgraded rounds available in 1943?

[Glider]

I am also checking the very same info screen... in June 1943, I think.

I have some work to do right now but I'll post screenshots in 20 minutes or so.

[DEY]

Okay I was a bit bored so I thought I'd try some one on one tests with the 76 gunned T34's.

The map is 1040 meters long and my ground bmps are gridded so I was able to place the tanks exactly toe to toe across the map from each other.

The year is still 1943 and the crews are still regular experience.

Model 41

Out or three tests run,

German: killed twice

Russian: killed once

Model 42

Out of three tests run,

German: killed all three times

Russian: survived all three times

Model 43

Out of three tests run,

German: survived all three times

Russian: killed all three times

[Zarquon]

The game shows both tanks and their ammo to be identical, yet the Germans score much higher than the Russians. That could either mean

- that the game engine is unfairly biased towards the Germans, or

- the tank stats (unit info screen) do not always reflect the actual numbers used. What if the numbers in the info screen were hardcoded somewhere, instead of being calculated every time the players clicks the button? They just copied the data from the Russian T-34 and then somebody else came up with penetration numbers for German-made ammo, forgetting to update the captured tank's info screen.

Mind me, I have no idea what's true but plain old sloppiness is a possible explanation that has nothing to do with untermenschen bias.

[Glider]

July 1943

[Bigduke6]

Glider,

What is this, the Twilight Zone? The AP numbers you just posted in your screen shots are exactly the same for both vehicles, just like I have been saying all along. Same vehicle, same weapon, same ammo.

Zaruquon,

I thought of that, but I also thought of the fact that the CMBB 76.2mm gun can't get through the front of Stuermgeschuetz, or the flank of Tiger, even at point blank, while in RL it was possible at shorter combat ranges (figure 400m. or less).

If the game gets that basic relationship wrong, with the most common Soviet AT piece of the war, I have evidence the CMBB's designers for all their brilliance were not on their best game dealing with Soviet weaponry.

I can't disprove you're theory of a data entry error on the information screen for the captured T-34/76 (43-late). But you can't prove it, and I already know as an ironclad fact the game depicts the 76.2mm gun incorrectly. Ironclad as in, I have talked to more than one Red Army war veteran, never mind the literature.

Thus, the the first place I am going to look when seeking an explanation to the question: "Why does a German-crewed T-34/76 M43(late) in CMBB shoot so much better than the same thing, if the crew is Soviet?"

For the forum in general:

JasonC for years now has been issuing a challenge to the forum community: find me one historical instance of a Stuermgeschuetz that was impervious to a frontal hit by a Soviet 76.2mm AP round.

So far, as far as I know, there have been no takers.

Here's mine: Where is the historical evidence the Soviet 76.2mm round never improved in peformance over the war, and further, that the German-manufactured 76.2mm round was better. Where are the comparative tests?

This site goes into the painful detail about armor penetration stuff. If you think I'm inventing all these claims look under Soviet. Warning the pop-ups are a pain.

www.gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html

[vulture]

Glider: the armour quality is also differemnt between the two models. Russian is 90%, while captured German is 85% (reflecting that captured t-34s may have been damaged whilst being captured?). Which makes the difference in penetration slightly more severe - the Russians are getting worse results against slightly inferior armour.

[DEY]

The germans did at least two different things in regard to captured guns.

1) They manufactured the same equivalent calibre ammo of the captured gun.

2) Modified the guns to fire standard german ammo.

It does appear in cmbb that the german stuff gets a small credit in penetration values, but it doesn't seem to do a whole lot for them in my game version.

I just tested the T34-85's at 800 meters with four each again and after three turns the germans have two dead, one tank alive and one backed off the map, all russian tanks are dead.

[vulture]

Bigduke: twilight zone? The numbers are quite clearly different in the vast majority of cases (the exceptions being 0 degrees at 100m and 500m, and 30 degrees at 100m). The differences are particularly severe at high angles. Check the 60 degree lines.

[Glider]

Originally posted by vulture:

Bigduke: twilight zone? The numbers are quite clearly different in the vast majority of cases (the exceptions being 0 degrees at 100m and 500m, and 30 degrees at 100m). The differences are particularly severe at high angles. Check the 60 degree lines.

Thanks, I was beginning to question my perception of reality

[Glider]

Originally posted by vulture:

...(reflecting that captured t-34s may have been damaged whilst being captured?)...

Yes, that was my interpretation, too. While some T-34s were undoubtedly captured intact, others had a few holes. Battlefront probably decided that on the average this warranted a 5% decrease in armour quality.

[Sergei]

Whoopsie boy.

[JasonC]

The effect of slope against the German round is modeled as tiny, compared to its effect vs. the Russian round. Look at 0 and 60 degrees at 500m. The Russian round has its penetration reduced by 1/2 against 60 degree slope - which is cosine effect, anything else either way netting out to zero. The German round has its penetration reduced by only 1/3, from 73 to 48. Far less than the cosine effect, less than anyone estimates the typical effect of slope.

The ratio of 0 to 60 seen for the German version is far lower than that for any other round of comparable energy or MV in the game. The German 50mm PAK, for instance, has very similar numbers to the Russian 76/42, but not to the German version of it. The US 75 on LL Shermans has greater penetration flat, but no more than the Russian ones get vs. sloped.

All the Russian 76s have similar numbers, including the superior 76L51, which the Germans thought so highly of. The German 76L51s have much higher pen numbers, some of which is justified by better ammo - but have the same 2 to 1 drop off, 0 to 60. So do all the German 75mm varieties. Some of the Russian or LL guns have drop offs of 2.5 to 1 (e.g. the 57mm on the Valentine IX).

The much lower drop off against slope that the German version of the same gun is given, and is not justified by geometry, other gun stats Russian LL or German. Since Russian armor schemes rely on slope (and incidentally, high brinell number i.e. very dense steel) and the Germans rely on low brinell flat plates, there is room for giant fudge factors all over the place. Find me the occasion where such a judgement call breaks in favor of the Russians.

There are some that are systematic, like favoring small calibers with high MV over similar energies with larger rounds. Getting a consistent formula results in some pockets of good performance for Russian or LL equipment - e.g. the 57mms.

Others that ought to perform very well on the same basis, however, do not. E.g. the late model Russian 45mm have extremely good MVs, and the game is generally very favorable to those. It gets high numbers only for flat angle shots at point blank range. The fall off with range and angle is exceptionally steep, with ammo quality fudge factors clearly in evidence.

E.g. compare Russian 45mm to 2 pdr, German 50mm and 37mm, in shot energy and penetration granted at 500m and 30 degrees. The 45mm has about the penetration of the 37mm PAK at 500m and 30 degrees. The early model with T ammo has the flat point blank penetration of the 50L60, but it falls by more than half at 500m and 30. The 50L60 declines only a third. In fact, the early Russian gun is modeled as barely better than the 37mm, at everything except point blank and flat with standard AP.

The later one has energies comparable to a 2 pdr, with 70 vs 75 rated flat with standard AP. But the 2 pdr loses a third going to 500m and 30 degrees - like most guns. The 45mm loses half, making it marginal against e.g. a skirted Pz III and preventing it from hurting a Panther. To get the 500m and 30 degree penetration of a 2 pdr, the Russian needs a late model 45mm with T ammo (!). Which has point blank penetration midway between a German 50L60 and a 75L43.

The most common historical weapons have been systematically skewed by a whole array of such fudge factors. The 76 is undermodeled, to the point where even Rexford agrees it ought to penetrate StuGs at 500m and does not. The 85 is undermodeled in 1943, when it is needed most to redress newly arrived cats. The 45 is undermodeled, making Panther sides difficult e.g.

76mm vs. 80mm fronts, 85mm vs. Tiger front hull or Panther front turret (or even 80mm!), 45mm vs. Panther side or 80mm front - these are not obscure match ups that happened to come out wrong because the formulas broke that way. They are the core tactical realities of the armor war in the east. To get the various judgment calls right, all you have to do is verify any judgment made about them by confirming that tactical realities match the predicted behavior those judgments produce.

And what those real time reports say is that 76mm needed 500m range against 80mm vehicles, that the 85mm had no problem with those but might need close range against 100mm because of shatter problems similar to the US 76mm, until corrected by improved ammo, that the 45mm improved dramatically with higher MV and T ammo, and regularly hurt things at close range as a result.

Instead the 76s bounce from StuG fronts at point blank, the 85s bounce from StuG fronts beyond 500m, the 45mm can kill unskirted IIIs but not Panthers, unless they have T ammo, in which case they need zero side angle and point blank even to hurt a StuG, etc. None of them verified even by German reports our claims, in fact several of them denied outright in German training documents (such as those explaining that a StuH is ineffective against armor because its HC is inaccurate until ranges so close the StuH can be killed by 76L42 etc).

By now, everybody knows this. Some just prefer it that way. Everyone was surprised by the uberStuG, which nobody had ever heard of as invulnerable before BB. As accurate, good optics, low profile, powerful gun, superior in effective penetration range - certainly. But Signal magazine didn't claim they were invulnerable to 76L42 from the front inside 500m. That had to wait for BB. (And even Rexford now admits it is incorrect as history).

We have a way of dealing with this as CM players. German players should take vehicles that do not exploit known overmodeling issues egregiously. More Pz III longs and Marders in 1942, fewer 30+50 front StuGs. More Pz IV longs in 1943 - it was in fact the stand by, and superior to its opponents. And if you want to use the Tigers and StuGs for historical or tactical problem interest, accept rariety off to allow the Russian player access to his reasonably modeled counters (like 57mm ATG, etc).

It is there, it is not deniable, we can easily do modest things about it that let CMBB still be an accurate model of the real fighting. We just need to avoid deliberately stressing the judgments made on all the fudge factors by always staying in the same "sweet spot" of worst calls. We can live with it. But denial won't cut it.

[Glider]

Originally posted by JasonC:

...The German round has its penetration reduced by only 1/3, from 73 to 48. Far less than the cosine effect, less than anyone estimates the typical effect of slope...

A minor issue - don't you think that it is possible that the German 76.2 round in this case is undermodelled for the 0 degree impact angle (instead of being overmodelled for 60 degrees as you say). Personally, I'd expect more than 0mm penetration difference at 100m.

[Bigduke6]

Glider,

Ok gotcha. There is a difference in the numbers, I was reading only the zero degree line. As you will see below, there is a reason for that.

But sorry, I don't back off one bit. The penetration difference you are talking is marginal, and probably meaningless.

The tests I ran were face to face. One line of tanks at one end of the board, shooting at another line of tanks at the opposite side of the board.

The overwhelming majority of the engagements I created in my experiment were within the frontal arc. i.e., 0 to 30 degree engagements. With one single exception (a Soviet tank panicked and turned sideways) all were outside the 60 degree arc. All.

As your post makes clear, the differences in penetration at the 750 meter bench-mark, if you are outside the 60 degree engagement angle, is in the test I conducted a couple of millimeters.

My tests were well outside 60 degrees. I apologize for the confusion about the penetration numbers, my fault there.

The numbers you posted show that if it is a German crew is shooting, and the engagement angle is 30 degrees to 60 degrees, the 76.2mm gun rates a theoretical penetration of 69mm at 500m range, and 62mm at 1000m range. If the Soviet crew is shooting the same gun but notionally different ammunition, the numbers respectively are 68mm and 60mm.

If the angle is 0 to 30 degrees, the "German" round is 2 mm more effective than the "Soviet" version of the same 76.mm round at 1000 meters. The rated penetration number at 500 meters range is the same, German or Soviet.

My experieents showed (to me anyway) the German-fired 76.2mm AP is is decisively more effective than Soviet-fired 76.2mm AP. Not by a little bit. Factors.

I cannot see how you or any one else can explain the superiority I saw with 1-2mm penetration rating superiority in favour of what supposedly is German ammunition.

This is without trying to account for the game supposedly is rating the armor of a Soviet T-34/76 (43-late) as 5 per cent better than the same T-34 if it is crewed by a German. If I were to do so I would tend to predict an overall edge to the Soviets - after all 5 per cent better armor should be better, than a penetration superiority of less than one per cent.

The tests don't bear out that rational prediction. Rule of thumb, if you line up twenty T-34/76 (43-late) at 750 meters, one side crewed Germans and the other Soviets, and have at it, at the end of a minute of firing the Soviet force will have 1-2 tanks left effective, and the German force will have maybe 17-18 left effective.

The German rounds penetrate consistently. The Soviet rounds do not. That's the difference.

Is any one out there actually arguing a 1-2 millimeter difference in predicted penetration capability can justify the lopsided results I have seen in the tests? Maybe there is something wrong with my methodology, but I don't see it.

The CMBB manual never mind our collective gaming experience, never mind real life, tells us those penetration numbers are general guidance which might not be exactly replicated on the CMBB battlefield.

If the German tanks were killing Soviet tanks in these tests say 5 per cent better I would not have much of an arguement. But the difference is factors larger. From what I can tell, Dey has replicated it.

So I am confused. I could understand how the game engine stacks things against some Soviet weapons. By this I mean I can see how it is happening. (Stricter Soviet penetration standards, yada yada yada we've discussed that subject into the ground.)

But for the life of me I can't understand what's happening to make German-crewed cannons penetrate, where Soviets firing the same cannons at the same angles with the (practically speaking) same chances of penetration against the exact same tanks, have big problems doing the same thing.

I always thought issues like this are rooted in the way BFI coded Soviet AP weapons, effectively making them underpowered. I don't like it, but I think I understand it. Like the like the rest of us, I live with it.

What I am talking about here looks like something different. This is evidence of what to me anyway looks like a slant within the coding itself, to make penetration calculations favor of German armor crews, or perhaps punish Soviet armor crews. Conceivably it could be both.

From what I can see this crew-related slant is not big, so it becomes most visible when the difference between penetrating and pinging is relatively small.

I know that's a pretty nasty assertation to make, and let me make clear I'm making a hypothesis not stating what I believe to be a fact. Maybe somehow I am reading these results wrong. Of course BFI would never do that.

But don't believe me, do the experiment yourself. Line up 20 on 20, 5 on 5, whatever. I say at 750m. with the T-34/76 (43-late) the German superiority is overwhelming. Not marginal, not 1-2mm. Overwhelming. Prove me wrong.

I just ran the test again to be sure, same result as before. The German T-34s cream the Russian T-34s. Why?

[ April 04, 2005, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Sergei]

Bigduke, the upper hull front of T-34 is 45mm at 60 degree angle. The German 76.2mm round can penetrate this to the range of 1000 meters, the Russian can't at any distance. It's as simple as that.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

But sorry, I don't back off one bit. The penetration difference you are talking is marginal, and probably meaningless.

To the contrary. At 100 meters range the Russian-made AP round cannot penetrate more than 40mm of steel at a 60 degree angle, but T-34 has 45mm at that angle.

[vulture]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Bigduke, the upper hull front of T-34 is 45mm at 60 degree angle. The German 76.2mm round can penetrate this to the range of 1000 meters, the Russian can't at any distance. It's as simple as that.

But what fraction of shots hit the sloped upper hull vas the vertical turrent front? With Bigduke's Russian ricochets vs German penetrations on the first salvo, does he have the hit distribution recorded? If Russian rounds are bouncing off the turret front while German ones are pentrating the same face, then there is a large discrepancy in practice between the penetrations at close to zero degrees despite what the numbers say.

[Bigduke6]

Sergei,

Nope.

Armor penetration in CMBB is not a 0/1 decision where the engine says "what's the range, what's the angle, what's the shell, okay do I generate a hit or a ping?"

As the manual points out, all sorts of hidden things go into the calculation, we can assume including turret angle to target, round fudge factors, chance etc. That number is general guidance, no more. Exceptions occur.

I am arguing I have evidence one of those factors is the nationality of the crew.

I just ran a 3 on 3 test at 1100 meters. The Germans destroyed all three Soviet tanks, in spite of the fact that at that range, supposedly, even the secret "German" round can't overcome any of the Soviet tank armor. Worst-case penetration is something like 40 meters, and as you point out, the T-34 has 45mm.

The Germans lost a TC trashing all three Soviet tanks. Was that just bad Soviet luck? Perhaps you will say it is. To me, however, it is a continuation of the same trend: the German crew outperforms the Soviet crew, far beyond any advantages the ammo supposedly gives the Germans.

Your arguement would hold water if, at 750m., the German round had trouble with the T-34 turret. It does not. In the tests I conducted, the German round penetrates the T-34 70mm turret pretty much with impunity.

(Edit - I just ran a 10 on 10 every one hull down. I may have to take the above paragraph back, this time the Germans had trouble overcoming the Soviet turrets, only penetrating about half the time. The Germans still won with upper hull hits. So I reduce "impunity" to "a lot easier than it is for the Soviets going the other way.")

I can't give you an off-hand count, but roughly I would say that one shot in five, fired by the Germans, pings if it hits the Soviet turret.

(edit- the 10 on 10 test in hull defilated was roughly 50/50)

I would say a good four out of five, and sometimes more, Soviet rounds ping off of a German 70mm T-34 turret. Pretty surprising considering the turret is rounded, and so you would expect at least some of the Soviet rounds to strike flat, and at least penetrate partially.

(Edit-this was borne out, German turrets remained absolutely impermiable to Soviet AP.)

Do the test, and tell me if it what you see makes sense to you.

[ April 04, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

...

But sorry, I don't back off one bit. The penetration difference you are talking is marginal, and probably meaningless...

I was not contradicting your statements, I was just trying to provide additional data

[Bigduke6]

I just did a 10 on 10 in hull defilade 800 meters. Over the first minute the Germans managed to inflict on the Soviets:

Gun Hit

Front Turret Ricochet

Upper Hull Penetration

Front Hull Penetration

Front Turret Ricochet

Front Hull Penetration KO

Front Hull Penetration

Front Hull Penetration

Front Lower Hull Penetration

Front Turret Ricochet

Track Hit

Front Turret Penetration

Track Hit

Front Lower Hull Penetration

Front Upper Hull Penetration

Front Upper Hull Penetration

Front Turret Penetration

Front Lower Hull Penetration

Front Lower Hull Penetraiton

Front Upper Hull Ricochet

The Soviets managed to do this to the Germans:

Front upper hull ricochet

Front upper hull ricochet

Gun hit

Front upper hull, armor flaking

Front upper hull ricochet

Turret ricochet

At the end of the first minute two Soviet tanks were functional. All the German tanks were functional.

Interestingly, there were far fewer turret strikes, although I guess some of them could be somehow in the upper hull hits.

It is unclear to me whether the more accurate German shooting comes from their having more surviving tanks over the long term, or something else.

In any case, no Soviet rounds broke into a German tank, although you would figure with every one in defilade and something like 30 - 40 rounds fired some one would have made a 0 degree turret hit.

[Bigduke6]

I see now I was misreading the slope numbers, my apologies to Glider and Sergei and any one else I have left out.

I understand better why this is happening the way it is. I still smell a rat, but I can see I am back to the subtle "it's in the penetration algorithm," rather than an inherent superiority of German crews. Although I find the accuracy advantage at hull-down pretty suspicious. My problem not yours.

Thanks guys for your help and patience, no hard feelings.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

... some one would have made a 0 degree turret hit.

Be very careful with 'rounded' turrets, they are modelled in a much more complex manner than the simple 70mm/rounded description would lead you to expect.

For instance, 80mm/rounded Stug IV upper hull is rather easy to penetrate. On the other hand, you could grow old waiting for that "flat hit" on the 83mm/rounded Jagdpanther upper hull.

[DEY]

I done some testing with the model 43 at 800 meters, four tanks each side.

Test 1,

Germans: 1 killed, 3 perfect working order

Russians: All four dead

Test 2,

Germans: All four perfect working order

Russians: All four dead

It must be because of the 70mm armor that the german made AP ammo can penetrate but the soviet AP ammo can't.