Jump to content

Advice on t-34 vs STUGs???


Recommended Posts

Just wondering can anyone give me any advice on what I possibly could have done (though it's a bit late now)...anyway, playing as Soviet May 1943 3000 QB ME on an open map with small hills.

I had 14 T-34s and I fast moved them to the base of a hill beside the flag, losing 4 to Anti-tank guns, but now I've 10 t-34s safely at the bottum of a hill not in the LOS of the ATGs.

Fine.

Then 3 STUG IIIGs come over the hill and I hit them with 5 76mm and 45mm ATGs and all 10 76mm T-34s at only 50m, all blasting away. Not a scratch on the STUGs and 10 burning t-34s within a couple of turns.

Is that in anyway realistic???? Is there anyway this could've been played by the Soviets? (no outflanking possible because of German ATGs and I called in smoke when I saw the STUGs but by the time it arrived, all my tanks were toast)...

Last game I had I was taking out Tigers from the front with T-34/85s but these STUGs seem to be indestructable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

StuG IIIG has 80mm front armor (50+30), which is on the limits of the 76.2mm gun's penetration. 85mm gun is far more potent weapon. 50 metres is quite close range, though. Did you get any shell shatters (Russian ammo is more likely to break at very close range due to lower quality)?

Maybe (depending on circumstances) having the T-34's in two groups, 5+5, so that one is on the left and other on the right, could have worked so that the StuG's in order to target either way would have turned their flanks to the other. If you have a screenshot, that would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No screenies as not at home...

There wasn't enough room in the lee of the hill for side shots, and it wasn't helped by the T-34s ignoring my orders and reversing away from the STUGs out into view of the German ATGs!

Don't know about Shattering shells, but my oppenent said all Stugs were recieving lots of hits with no affect...

But were those STUG III Gs really that good IRL???

One wonders why they bothered building Tigers at all!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuG IIIG's were good, at least they were liked by the Finnish army in 1944 although at that point the armour wasn't impenetrable for the Russian 85 and 152mm guns but the gun still could slice through most Russian tanks. I can't tell if CMBB models StuG armour vs. Russian 76.2mm correctly, but I'm sure certain grogs will jump here in a minute.

To answer your rhetorical question, Tiger's flank and rear protection is better than StuG's front, it has a better gun, a turret and larger ammo storage plus a coaxial machine gun. More importantly, Tiger is a heavy tank while StuG is an assault gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange - in one of the last games I played I had a platoon of StuG IIIs (can't remember the exact model though - date was May 44). Out of the three, one got his gun damaged by the first shot of a 6pdr ATG (then a second hit went through and killed one of the crew before the AFV could retreat behind a cloud of smoke).

Second one got it's TC killed through the front hull by a Sherman III (though after that there was one shattered shell, one deflection and one spalling), retreated in panic, spend 4 turns recovering, then managed to flank shoot the Sherman while he was duking it out with a panzershreck team - still took 2 penetrations to knock it out.

Last one was used against light infantry only, but still managed to lose it's commander somehow (I didn't pay much attention to that side of the map at the time, but the only ennemy unit present where the TC was killed was a PIAT crew, I assume they did it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why T-34s have problems with Stugs is because Stugs were purpose-built to fight T-34s! The designers figured out how much armor a 76.2mm gun could penetrate, then gave the Stug just a bit more armor than that.

The Stug's achilles heal is its casement gun and sloooow turn rate (especially in CMBB). A Soviet tactic (unfortunately not applicable to the game) was to aim for the tracks. Break the right track as the Stug's moving and the left track will swing the vehicle around, presenting you with a side shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hinkar:

No screenies as not at home...

There wasn't enough room in the lee of the hill for side shots, and it wasn't helped by the T-34s ignoring my orders and reversing away from the STUGs out into view of the German ATGs!

Don't know about Shattering shells, but my oppenent said all Stugs were recieving lots of hits with no affect...

But were those STUG III Gs really that good IRL???

One wonders why they bothered building Tigers at all!!

Now you know why the Russians bothered with the 85mm version ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The armor penetration effectiveness of the T-34/76's Zis-5 gun in CMBB is an issue of some debate here on the forum. A several grogs, mostly notably JasonC, are of the opinion that the Zis-5's armor penetration ability in general is somewhat undermodeled in CMBB, and that as a result the T-34 is at a historically unrealistic disadvantage in certain matchups. The Mid to Late War StuGIII vs. T-34 is one such matchup.

Personally, I don't know enough about armor penetration physics to add to what has been said, but I will say that Jason's arguments make a lot of sense, and that furthermore my own reading of accounts of East Front battles seems to support the idea that the StuG III's frontal armor, while mostly proof againt Zis-5 fire at medium and long range, could probably be defeated by the Zis-5 at short, and almost certainly point blank range. This is definitely not the case in CMBB, where even at point blank, the Zis-5 has very little chance of damaging a StuG with a frontal hit.

As for what you should have done differently given the way things are in the game, with T-34/76s vs. 80mm frontal armor StuGs, you MUST get flanking shots not matter what the range. With an engagement distance of 50m and a 3:1 numerical superiority, you could have charged the Stugs, closing the angle even further and forcing the StuGs to try to rotate to target the fast-moving T-34s. Actually, at that range, even 1 on 1, a StuG will have a hard time rotating quickly enough to get a bead on a fast-moving T-34.

Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, you probably concentrated your armor and anti-armor assets too much. While the T-34/76 can't reliably penetrate StuG III frontal armor at any range, it easily pentrates the StuG III side armor at any reasonable combat ranges. Two or three groups of T-34s in mutually supporting positions could have trapped the StuGs in a crossfire. alternatively, you could have engaged from one angle with your guns, and an other with your T-34s. Concentrating all your anti-armor power in such a way that you can shoot at enemy armor from only one angle is rarely a good idea, ESPECIALLY if you're playing Allies.

I would note, however, that I think you got fairly unlucky in this specific instance. By my count, you had 5:1 advantage in shooters -- 10 T-34 plus 5 ATGs vs. 3 StuGs. Often, with this kind of numerical advantage, you will get a couple of weak point penetrations, gun hits, and/or immobilization hits, and/or rout an AFV crew due to the morale effects of multiple non-penetrating hits even if you don't actually have much chance of actually KOing an enemy AFV with a "normal" hit. On average, you probably still lose the bulk of your T-34s, but you probably would least render one or two of the StuGs combat ineffective.

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the penetration values for your T34's 76mm guns. 80mm frontal armor may be just too much for them.

Thoughts:

a) Use smoke from the T34 (not sure if it exists). Use a short covered armor arc to ensure the tank fires smoke. Doubt that works at 50m as the lethal threat overrides smoking.

B) Do not bunch up. If at a distance of 50m none of 10 T34 is on the flank of 3 StuGs, you must be pretty bunched up. One tank starts to reverse, gets in the way of another tank that makes room, itself moves into another tank etc... and the whole TacAI screws as you get lots of moving tanks that can't hit a barn at 50m. Target pracitce for the StuGs.

c) If you meant 500m - StuGs are indestructible from the front at that range with 76mm. Take cover.

d) Remember Oddball's words - as fast in reverse as forward to get out of trouble as quickly as you got in. Make sure thereis a covered route for a retreat

e) You probably ignored flank security and paid for it.

f) You bought nothing to deal with the ATGs. Thats what mortars, snipers and MGs are for.

g) What are your tanks doing at the bottom of a hill? Why did you have to go there? Just because it is the only dead angle of the ATGs? This is a death trap! Kill the threats before doing fancy maneuvers.

h) Tanks are long range weapons. Rushing the flags with all tanks is not necessary to control them. Try to concentrate on destroying the enemy or at least those units that can stop you from conveniently reaching the flags.

i) Do some scouting

j) Consider the options of the enemy and think of possible death traps and ambush locations.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could try to use game mechanics to your advantage. I've noticed when the AI retreats a tank it's quite likely to turn the vehicle broadside to the threat in the process. If you could somehow force the Stug to retreat (avoiding mortar/artillery fire?) you might find yourself with a side shot by the end of the turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The reason why T-34s have problems with Stugs is because Stugs were purpose-built to fight T-34s!

INCORRECT!!!!!! :mad:

Now go to the blackboard and write 200 times "StuG's were designed to support attacking infantry".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe...

Stugs were built to support infantry. So much for the StugIIIb.

But later they were improved cause

- it was easier to fit the Pak40 into a hull than into a turret and thus an AFV mounting a "long" 75 could be made earlier

- they were cheap

- it made sense.

They were impoved continually to match the threat they were facing. As the T34 was the workhorse of the Soviets, the workhorse of the Germans was improved to counter it.

So the StuG was not designed to counter T34s - they were improved to counter them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[edited to note that Joachim posted faster than I could and beat me to the draw]

I'd say you're both correct:

StuG IIIB - built for infantry support

StuG IIIF onward - uparmoured and given the long 75 to deal with the T-34 and KV-1

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

The reason why T-34s have problems with Stugs is because Stugs were purpose-built to fight T-34s!

INCORRECT!!!!!! :mad:

Now go to the blackboard and write 200 times "StuG's were designed to support attacking infantry". </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes me remember the scenario 'Lonely Country' , where **Spoiler** I knocked out the last StuG with a frontal penetration at close range (less than 100m) with tungsten rounds of 76mm ...

Well I think thungsten shells are only late war for soviets but this is still interesting to keep that in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Joachim:

...

g) What are your tanks doing at the bottom of a hill? Why did you have to go there? Just because it is the only dead angle of the ATGs? This is a death trap! Kill the threats before doing fancy maneuvers.

...

Gruß

Joachim

Thanks for the replies! (it was 50m).

It is now obvious what I did wrong! And I shouldn't be blaming the T-34s (though they didn't help). I was more worried about the ATGs than I was about enemy tanks (and yet I was too impatient to walk my mortars and MGs into positions that could LOS his ATGs). And trying to avoid the ATGs led me into death trap...

Live and learn...

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hinkar,

That situation is called "bad luck". I'm very surprised that the 3 Stugs didn't immobilize or panic and have the crews bail. I know I've had jadgtiger crews bail when a lowly T-70 tapped it from 1000+m (I had that crew transfered to a pz II assault team).

I've played using Stug III's against T-34/76's and had them whoop me in a slug out. So, they are not invincible.

I thought that the Stug's were built as a mobile (to keep up with the infantry) infantry guns. Only later did Stug crews discover that their afv was the best armored thing the Germans had at the moment. Remember Wittman took out 6(?) T-34s in his Stug III in a single engagement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

Hinkar,

That situation is called "bad luck". I'm very surprised that the 3 Stugs didn't immobilize or panic and have the crews bail. I know I've had jadgtiger crews bail when a lowly T-70 tapped it from 1000+m (I had that crew transfered to a pz II assault team).

I've played using Stug III's against T-34/76's and had them whoop me in a slug out. So, they are not invincible.

I thought that the Stug's were built as a mobile (to keep up with the infantry) infantry guns. Only later did Stug crews discover that their afv was the best armored thing the Germans had at the moment. Remember Wittman took out 6(?) T-34s in his Stug III in a single engagement.

Wittmann engaged 18 Russian tanks. Six were destroyed one of those was a KV1. The others aren't identified.

That the crew had to get clean clothes afterwards was! :D

Panther Commander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had meant that Stug were purpose-built starting with the G models with enough armor to stop T34 shells - and enough of a gun to stop T34s outright... not Shermans, not Churchills, not Crusaders, but T34s. It was the T34 threat that they had in mind while planning their improvements.

Bur Sergei knew that's what I meant. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russian 76mm is undermodeled, and it results in ahistorical uber-StuGs. No account has ever been presented in which StuG drivers so much as claim they were invulnerable from the front.

The Germans went through a continual up armoring process to deal with the Russian 76mm. The Russians reacted by improving the ammo over time. The two processes resulted in a reduction in effective range of the 76mm at midwar, but not to zero.

One fellow said "The designers figured out how much armor a 76.2mm gun could penetrate, then gave the Stug just a bit more armor than that".

Oh? Did they test against BR-350A or BR-350B or BR-350P, then? How did they test against ammo before it was fielded?

With the earliest ammo, the Russian 76mm would have trouble with a 20+50 or 30+50, but no problem with a 50mm front.

When the Germans fielded 80mm front AFVs, the Russians countered with capped AP - the BR-350B round. According to Glantz describing the match up at Kursk, the result was the Russian 76mm was effective at close range - 500 yards. The Russian field manuals on use of their 76mm ATGs - sold on this site - give the proper range to open fire on German tanks at 400m to 600m, depending on the type of 76mm involved. The penetration numbers at the Russian battlezone website fit the manuals and Glantz.

In CM, BR-350A and B are not distinguished. But at the time the B round was commonly available, penetration for the Russian 76mm tops out at less than 80mm. Resulting in the uber-StuG. The Russians don't get T ammo for the 76 until 1944. Then it performs better only at close range and against flat plates.

They have 85s by then anyway. But in 1943, even their 85mm regularly fails against StuG fronts - with "shell broke up" results. There is no historical justification for this and the game's own numbers imply the 85mm should have no problem against 30+50 StuGs. But in practice they do - probably because of how the game models shatter and imaginary poor Russian ammo quality. Double accounting and German physics probably also play a role.

When you play the Russians in CMBB, you can't use historical Russian tactics. You must adapt to the dumbed down weapons the game hands you. That means instead of the historical closing tactics, you must use flanking tactics. You must exploit the game's other innaccuracies, like extremely slow rotation speeds for stationary vehicles. And limits of the tac AI, through distraction.

T-34s should almost always be using fast move from cover to cover. With a forward "firing halt" shoot and scoot order thrown in along some paths, to get your own shots off while stationary for a few seconds. From widely separated locations. Because of platoon command issues, the minimum effect T-34 force is two platoons. A single platoon can support infantry against guns, but cannot fight German AFVs realistically.

Also, you should demand rariety be turned off in any fight in which the German player is allowed to take uber-armor. If he takes Tigers or perpetually uses uber-StuGs (never even a Panzer IV), take 57mm ATGs, SU-152s, and lend lease (Valentine IX, Sherman) or captured vehicles (StuGs e.g.). T-34/57s are also useful for anti-armor ability in 1943.

The overmodeling of 80mm fronts is a problem vs. Pz IVs as well, but a livable one in that case. Because the turret is penetrable out to medium range. The Pz IVs outperforms as it ought to - it just outperforms more than it should inside 500m. But it can be fought with something like the historical tactics. The StuGs cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 76.2mm gun certainly wasn't as bad as wartime German/Cold War propaganda would lead us to believe. But BFC had got hold of some (probably reliable) source material that says the overly-hard Russian round was prone to shatter. The Russians even designed grooves that went around the forward part of the 76.2mm projectile in an effort to control round break-up (like grooves in a concrete side walk are meant to contain the spread of a crack). That, if true, would close much of the divide between projected penetration and game penetration.

Plus, I believe the Stug Gs are homogeneous armor and there were reports floating about that homogeneous armor does better than face-hardened against the Russian round.

[ June 09, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to invite absolutely anybody who believes the uber-StuG effect is realistic to cite a single source German or Russian wartime or since, prior to CMBB, that so much as alleged that a plain StuG was invulnerable to Russian 76mm firing BR-350B down to point blank range. I've issued it many times and I've yet to get a single response directly on point (I get no end of wind that isn't on point).

The German StuGs aces themselves credit the StuG for its low profile, its powerful gun, its excellent optics. They say they usually won by simply being the first to get hits. Signal magazine propaganda during the war included the tagline the life of an assault artilleryman is short but full of interest. You can find any number of photographs of StuGs modified to improve their front armor with poured concrete, track sections across the bow. You can find any number of German tankers singing the praises of the Tiger I for its invulnerability. You can't find *one* saying the same about the StuG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An old post about how 85mm in 1943 performs against StuGs.

Paul said "which limits T-34 76mm AP shell to ~0-900m penetration [½ hits]"

Find me a Russian 76mm that will penetrate the front of a 30+50 StuG in CMBB at 900m, or at 500m, not half the time but ever.

This comment was so amusing given the current state of CMBB that it inspired the following test.

Same StuGs in the same firing lanes as before. 900m away at the other end, in the different lanes - 85mm AA in 2, dug in in scattered trees. SU-85s in 2. (This is September 1943 to make them available). KV-85s in 2. Two trials. After that, the SU-85 vs. StuG fest. 3 lane each feature 2 SU-85s against 1 StuG, the other 3 each feature 3 SU-85s against 1 StuG. All regulars, all start buttoned.

68 85mm rounds hit the StuGs. 8 hits were effective. The best 2 were upper hull partial penetrations that caused -1 crew and gun damage. Both StuGs so hit reversed off the field alive. 3 were track hits that caused immobilization. In one of those 3 cases, subsequent hits persuaded the crew to bail. 2 were ricochets with internal flaking that caused 1 crew casualty. In one case the StuG recovered fully, in the other it was already immobilized by a track hit and this was the hit that persuaded them to bail.

The last, 8th effective hit was a side hull KO that occurred after one StuG crew momentarily panicked and fast moved forward and then turned broadside toward 2 SU-85s (after killing one in its "lane"). This StuG was hit 13 times, including 4 internal flake results, mostly without going past "shaken". When 2 flake hits occurred within about a second and a half, they went to panic for about 3 seconds and pulled their suicidal "boner".

One 85mm AA survived by making the crew of its StuG bail. It's first shot was a track immobilization, that is how it got so lucky. Another had the crew broken but still at the gun at the end. None of the lone AFVs survived. In the multiple tests, 3 lived in one lane by gun damaging their StuG with a partial pen early on, 2 lived in the lane with the panicked StuG, and 1 lived in another lane after the other partial pen gun damage result made its StuG reverse off the map.

In all, about 1 in 4 of the 85mm weapons lived. The StuGs suffered one actual KO - the panicker hit from the side - one bailout after immoblization, 2 gun damaged but lived, and 2 immobilized but lived - out of 18 StuGs.

These were not 76L42s. These were not 76L51s. These were 85mm. These were not Tigers at the other end, they were early model III G StuGs.

No doubt the faithful will now explain to you why it is all perfectly reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...