Advice on t-34 vs STUGs???

[rexford]

Originally posted by Vossiewulf:

MikeyD, wrt to shattering rounds, that's Jason's point- he's asserthing that they're using data on a non-capped round for a time period when the Russians were using capped rounds. The entire purpose of a cap (not a ballistic cap) is to prevent the penetrator from shattering.

The Russians did not use armor piercing caps during WW II, and if JasonC suggested they did he is wrong.

[rexford]

Originally posted by JasonC:

9 StuGs IIIGs early vs 9 M4A2 Shermans. 2 StuGs KOed, 1 Gun damaged, and only because I just mindlessly charged after the first exchange. (If I had sniped at range I would have run the table without loss). All Shermans KOed of course. The Shermans got 1 hit at 650m that richoceted before losing 5 tanks.

During my mindless charge, the Shermans got 8 hits at 400-450m. 3 ricochets, 1 gun hit with gun damage, 1 upper hull partial pen with no significant damage, 1 lower hull pen with KO, 1 upper hull partial pen with shock and -1 crew, a second to the same tank that cause bail out. Every German round was going in, of course.

The StuGs cost *less* than the Shermans. Even with rariety off. Ridiculously.

And the performance of the US 75mm in this engagement is about what all the German side reports say Russian 76mm did once they had BR-350B.

StuGs are uber, Shermans aren't an answer to them, their prices are ridiculous for their combat power. To get play balance you need to turn rariety off, or better still just ban StuGs and make the Germans use Pz IVs instead.

The Sherman 75mm APCBC penetrates 95mm face-hardened at 500m, so should be able to defeat the StuG III driver plate and the 50mm/51 degrees upper superstructure front beyond 500m.

[rexford]

JasonC said with regard to my past posts:

"Anything that might endanger his beloved Tigers from the side he would resist with the greatest imaginable tower of fudge."

The Tiger side and rear armor plates resisted penetration like 84.5mm average effectiveness during British, American and Russian firing tests, with a standard deviation of about 7%.

So the Sherman 75mm APCBC would penetrate the 84.5mm average resistance on 31% of the perpendicular hits at 500m, and 14% at 750m.

In British tests the Sherman 75mm APCBC penetrated the Tiger side armor at 800 yards, and in other tests the rounds failed at 500 yards. That's why an average is important, with a statistical standard deviation.

CMBO undermodels the Tiger armor resistance by overestimating Sherman 75mm APCBC penetration (89mm at 500m instead of 81mm), only gives the Tiger 80mm side thickness (should be 81mm to 82mm), and does not model the better armor (which combines with above-design thicknesses to resist with an average resistance of 84.5mm).

I don't like the way Tigers are easily penetrated in CMBO so I don't use em. Simple response. I don't expect CMBO to change and live with what is.

Russian tests showed the T34 76.2mm APBC bouncing off the Tiger side armor at 200m with terrible damage to the projectiles.

As I've stated many times in the past, the Russians had uncapped solid shot AP rounds designed to penetrate the Tiger side armor and super hard BR-350B APBC designed for Tiger

bashing.

Penetrations against Tiger II armor cannot be compared to 1943 hits on Tigers and StuG IIIG because different ammo could be in use.

[ June 20, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by moik:

This discussion has confirmed some of my own suspicions based on my experience with t-34 vs Stugs and PzIII long barrels.

I've found that early t-34 tanks don't live up to alot of the history I've read about the east front.Wasn't the Panther developed as a counter to the t-34? Playing CMBB you wouldn't have thought it necessary.

Moik

Considering the lopsided kill ratios in favour of PIV and StuG lang in 1942 and 1943 your histories of the east front paint a funny picture indeed.

Also the Reports that led to the development Panther only mention the supreame power of the KV tanks and that this was the AFV to beat, the T-34 is mentioned only in regards to it's superiority cross country versus PIV and PIII.

[ June 20, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

FM Paul Heinrik, do disrespect, but as a new player, you are talking about things you dont understand. If you want to learn more about this particular subject, you can do a search on this forum.

Why do u think I'm participating in the conversation? To learn and express what I've seen. If it makes u feel good to try and belittle me go ahead, I'm a big boy.

BTW, i did a search for stugs vs t-34s and guess what....it directed me to this thread, weird huh?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

FM Paul Heinrik, do disrespect, but as a new player, you are talking about things you dont understand. If you want to learn more about this particular subject, you can do a search on this forum.

Why do u think I'm participating in the conversation? To learn and express what I've seen. If it makes u feel good to try and belittle me go ahead, I'm a big boy.

BTW, i did a search for stugs vs t-34s and guess what....it directed me to this thread, weird huh? </font>

[JonS]

how were your exams?

[Bastables]

What exams? Had a malaria relapse and had to agrotate them.

[JonS]

is that good, or bad?

And where's my turn? Don't think some lame sick note from your mum is going to get you off a righteous kicking.

[The Nathan]

Something is a bit funny, I did a 1943 test with three Stugs vs. nine t-34's facing eachother at the kinfe-fight range of 153 meters.

Ricochets galore for the stugs without a single penetration, I did multiple variations of this test including a t-34 tank rush from straight ahead, and two diaganol sides, all ended up with either the stugs winning wonderfully, or maybe a paltry crew loss or two.

But the knife-fight firing squad was really disturbing. Those stugs should have went down in the first volley, not bounced off shells like KT's or something :confused:

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JonS:

is that good, or bad?

And where's my turn? Don't think some lame sick note from your mum is going to get you off a righteous kicking.

As long as you promise to stop this insane zipping of files. Very annoying.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Is this just the 76.2mm on the T-34s or is it all 76.2mm guns vs the Stug IIIs? What about the Stug IV? It's armor is also 80mm right.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

Is this just the 76.2mm on the T-34s or is it all 76.2mm guns vs the Stug IIIs? What about the Stug IV? It's armor is also 80mm right.

Which is why I made my original comment..

[Gpig]

Heh heh. Just had to resurrect this thread. I played a QB versus a friend last night, and he had picked 6 Stugs (80mm front), 2 pzIVs and a Lynx.

I had 2 KV-85s and 3 T-34 (76)

None of my assets could hurt the stugs. I never got closer than 400 meters. I managed to take out one stug with a flank shot. My KV's just freaked and threw it into reverse. They too, were taken out by the stugs at 600 meters. My 85mm rounds bouncing harmelssly off of them.

I lost the battle because I could not touch his armor, and he had the high ground. I couldn't shoot my infantry onto the objectives.

Interesting side note, I played a battle against the A.I. recently (Lonely Country) and . . .

***SPOILER ALERT***

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I had 10 T-34's open up on 2 nasty (80mm) stugs in the first turn. I lost 1 of my T-34's but took out one of the stugs (this was about 600m) with a lucky "weak point penetration." The other sustained a "Gun hit," causing him to be ineffective for the rest of the game.

Got lucky, there. Still, Hail-fire seems to help, if you can manage it.

Gpig

[Krautman]

About the cherry-picking issue- i think it merely depends on which side you prefer to play. JasonC wrote

"And those who always use StuGs are just pussies."

so i suppose he prefers the Russians. I prefer playing Germans in the "grey" period 41-42, and i'm quite fed up with sending my PzIIIJ short and rifle infantry against T-34M43 and hordes of cheap smg infantry. I always wonder about players complainig about those Über Germans, i somehow feel the CMBB Russians are superiour from 41 to 45 in tanks, infantry and arty. Just calm down, the grass is always greener on the other side.

[Bigduke6]

Krautmann,

I disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The issue is historical accuracy. A Sturmgeschutz invulnerable at normal combat ranges to a frontal strike by the Soviet 76.2 AP round of the day is ahistorical. In fact the Soviet 76.2 round according to accounts on both sides of the trenches say Sturmgeschutz was vulnerable to the Soviet 76.2 round at ranges of about 500 meters or less. Therefore, a CMBB battle including Soviet 76.2 cannon and Sturmgeschutz combat vehicles is silly and obliges ahistorical tactics. Players should not accept it, unless of course players could care less about historial accuracy, in which case why play CMBB at all?

The case of the German 50mm AT gun in its various marks against T-34 in its various marks is a different kettle of fish. The historical record shows (and I'll be happy to throw the sources at you) the German 50mm AT gun had trouble with T-34 frontal armor, although it certainly could penetrate sometimes. This is fairly faithfully replicated in CMBB, and so CMBB fairly accurately replicates fights where PanzerIII comes up against T-34.

I prefer to play Soves but I don't whine about the historical German advantages, that actually existed. For instance, German tank optics were better, I don't have any problem with a German vet crew in a Sturmgeschutz being more accurate than a Soviet vet crew in a T-34. 88mm L/71 had outstanding pentrating power even at long rangers. I don't have any problem with 88mm L/71 destroying a Stalin II with a frontal hit.

The main issue here is modeling the penetrative and destructive capacity of the Soviet 76.2mm AT gun in CMBB. Anti-tank rifles excepted, that weapon was the most common AT weapon the Soviets ever produced. Getting the capacities of that gun wrong is not a little thing you can write off to "the grass is greener."

How many "German" players would keep quiet if the AT performance of the 75mm "long" gun went from "penetrates all Soviet tanks at all combat ranges" to "fails to penetrate some Soviet tanks from the front lots of the time, and others never?"

Not many, I expect. And fewer still would buy the arguement, hey, CMBB in general is very accurate, why are you complaining about inaccurate modeling of the 75mm?

[JasonC]

"We accept that the 76.2mm should penetrate the StuG IIIG front inside 500m."

Unfortunately, the "we" includes Rexford but not apparently BTS. Since everybody knows it ought to be so and isn't, deliberately stressing the game by arranging for its weakest modeling point to play a disproportionate role in CM games and tactics, is seeking a deliberate in game advantage from a known historical innaccuracy.

Moreover, by just using Pz IVs in 1943, one can limit the advantage from this innaccuracy - without incidentally giving up on benefiting from it entirely. It is a scandal that this is controversal with anybody.

No allied player would complain about having a tank that kills any enemy vehicle when it hits in, and bounces every common enemy AP weapon from the front hull, and lesser rounds from the front turret as well. To get comparable tank fighting abilities, a US player would need a W+ Sherman 76 and a Russian needs at IS-2. Yet we have threads about how to use Pz IVs years after CMBB came out, as though they were unplayably weak and players have never learned how to use them properly.

In the second half of 1942, the weapons of choice should be 50L60 Pz IIIs or Marders. You can take the 50mm front variety of Marders, which are immune to 45mm fire. The 20+50 Pz IIIs are overmodeled enough that they regularly bounce 76mm rounds down to short ranges. The Marders kill at range but are vulnerable to replies, the Pz IIIs can kill close with sticky turret hits or from the sides, and can be killed about the same way.

That is close to parity, and there is not much reason to complain about it. If designers think it is too hard, they can add 10 extra T rounds for each Pz IIIs, give short 75 vehicles 10 HC (which was historically much more common than it is in CM), etc. Similarly, if you have a 1943 scenario that needs to have StuGs or Tigers in it, move the date to 1944 before you add T-34s and ZIS-3, and give them half T ammo. You will see historical closing tactics.

If you can't drive a Pz IV you can't fight in tanks. If you can't fight in Pz IVs in 1943, you can't do the first thing most of the German panzer force was able to do. You aren't learning tactics, you aren't simulating any part of history, you are being a wimp. Live a little and try it. The world will not end. We can correct this ourselves with modest fuss.

[ March 22, 2005, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Krautman]

Bigduke6,

i see your point, and i understand -and did so before this thread- that "russian" players feel pissed because their tank gun is weaker than they think it should be (whether the cmbb 76,2 actually IS underpowered i do not know, i'm not into ballistics-if it IS underpowered, then, BTS, shame on you! ).

However, saying the germans are uber in general is just wrong. The optics aren't that deceisive, and a single grenade bundle and some secs of faster reaction shouldn't increase the price of german infantry that much.

Someone said the StuGs are just too cheap- i don't think so. They are just (too?) good at destroying tanks, but lack anti-personnel capacities.

But cmbb is a game and it is never reality. There are other issues about historical correctness- from my (very limited) ww2 knowledge, i'd have expected bolt-action rifles to be more effective at ~150-250m, russian infantry being equipped with fewer smgs in the early war (didn't they even have shortages in lmgs and rifles?), and the lmg 34 to be much more powerful-it's plain crap compared to the Bren/ZB 30. In addition, reading Forsythe's "Dogs of War", i'd have expected the MP40 to be at least at par with the Sten. These issues, of course, are not as obvious as an incorrectly impenetrable afv- but in infantry-heavy battles, which i like, these issues make the germans have a really, really hard time, especially 41-42.

Since cmbb is a game, players will use any tactic that will make them win, be it wholesale squad splitting, buying KVs and the REGIMENTAL smg cpy as standard choices for '41 QBs or, as germans, taking only StuGs. All of which i consider gamey. If i was playing with you, Bigduke6, i'd agree on not taking 80mm front StuGs and would ask you not to use smg infantry- then we could have a good, balanced game.

About german 50mm l/60 AT: You are correct. I know it's not strong enough to penetrate T-34s. I was just saying it is not exactly funny sending Pz III SHORT and rifle inf against T-34s with 70mm turret armour and smg inf. Which is what'll happen if you play a summer '42 QB. So i know what it's like to have your fun spoiled.

I've played the board games "Bloodbowl" and "Warhammer Fantasy" for a while, and it was just the same: (nearly) everyone is only interested in winning, not in balanced gameplay for fun.

I'd like the next cm game to correctly model all weapons - including the 76,2 - and somehow link infantry prices with/to? their firepower rating.

[ March 22, 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[Krautman]

Hey Bigduke,

i just read some of your posts in the "Soviets in the worst of '43" thread, where you said cmbb afv point costs are in favour of the germans- that also depends on the time period. How many PzIIIJ shorties or IVFs do you get for the same point that you need to buy a T-34 platoon in early 42? Doesn't look like a fair fight either.

I guess it was pretty hard for the cm game designers to determine unit point cost, because the actual worth of the units depends on which enemies it meets.

[Bigduke6]

Krautmann,

What can I say, you've got me. I agree, it must suck if you are a German in early '42 and you only have IIIJ shorties and IVFs, while your opponent is armed with a T-34/KV mix.

Of course, that probably would never happen in a quick battle. Why? Because you also can buy PzrIIIJ with the long 50mm, or Stug IIIB or IIIE.

In spite of the German propaganda, in early 1942 it's not, repeat not, swarms of great Soviet tanks against a few weak German tanks.

Here is what I came up with looking at March '42.

SturmIIIB Plt - 3 vehicles 248 points

SturmIIIE Plt - 3 vehicles 254 points

PzerIVF Plt - 4 vehicles 457 points

Pzr IIIJ Plt - 4 vehicles 449 points

T-34 '41 Plt - 3 veh, 285 points (45mm on turret)

T-34 '41 Plt - 3 veh 304 points (52mm on turret)

T-34 '42 Plt - 3 veh 376 points (65mm on turret)

Individually the T-34s cost between 93 and 117 points each (non-command version). A Stug from this example costs 78 or 79 points, PzrIVF costs 109 points, and IIIJ - the German vehicle with the best gun of the group - costs 107 points.

This is not overwhelming Soviet numerical superiority. This is numerical parity.

Ok, so how good are the respective sides' armor and weapons?

Well, on the German side the armor is easy - 50mm everywhere, not sloped very well. The Soviet 76.mm gun, even as modeled in CMBB, can defeat that at shorter combat ranges, although at longer rangers, say 750m plus, 50mm of German armor can deflect a 76.2mm round sometimes. So basically the Germans are vulnerable across the board.

On the Soviet side the T-34 sports well-sloped bow armor 45mm, and as time went on the Soviets made their turrets thicker and thicker. Thus, the most expensive T-34 has 65mm of turret armor sloped at 30 degrees.

The Germans in this example have two weapons to try and overcome that armor; 75mm L/24 and 50mm L/60. I'll take the easy one first, the 50mm L/60 will whack a T-34 it is likely to face at pretty much any range.

The L/24 75mm has more trouble as its low velocity makes it less accurate at longer ranges, and what's more its rated penetration 60-61mm, usually isn't enough to overcome the thickest T-34 frontal turret armor. This is compensated somewhat by the fact that the typical load-out for this weapon includes between 4 - 8 Hollow Charge rounds, which will whack a T-34.

And of course we shouldn't forget, the Pzr tanks have Good optics, and the Sturms have Long-range optics.

So at the end of this exercise I am pretty far from concluding the German position in March '42 sucks. If the Germn just buys Panzer IIIJ he can kill whatever he hits, and with his optics all other things being equal he will hit first.

If the German has Panzer IVF or Stugs handed to him he will have some trouble with the very toughest/latest T-34 provided the T-34 stays hull down. But otherwise the short German 75 has a reasonable chance of overcoming all the other T-34s, any aspect. Most likely it will come down to who shoots first and more accurately, and like I said, the German optics are superior.

Of course, if your definition of an unacceptable German situation is when the German lack a vehicle frontally invulnerable to all Soviets AP, for instance the later marks of Sturm, Tiger/Panther etc., then I certainly do agree with you.

Early '42 forces a German player actually to worry about his combat vehicles being pentrated from the front. If some German player thinks that is an unfair situation (I am not saying that you Krautmann are like this), then I cetainly do understand how that German player would intensely dislike the early phases of the war, and maybe even how he could with tortuous logic argue that time period is "unfair to Germans."

Which is not the same as my agreeing with him, of course.

I have left the KV to the end. KV is obviously invulnerable to 75mm L/24 period, and to the the 50mm L/60 unless it's a tungsten round. An unethical Soviet player can get four KVs for 504 points, while the best the German can do is come up with four PzrIIIJs for 449 points. So yes, if the Soviet player has unlimited access to KVs the German player is screwed.

To me, this is proof that the quick battle engine is a really poor way to determine relative force in a human-to-human fight. If the players are more or less equally competent, the KVs obviously will go to town on the Pzrs, just like about a year later Panthers will wipe the floor with T-34s.

I would ask why any one would play on either side of a scenario like that. If you want to use CMBB to watch movies of your invulnerable tanks blowing up the enemy, play against the A/I.

For human-to-human fights the only real solution is a balanced scenario where terrain and combined arms come more into play. In almost cases, the scenario has to be similar to the real life Eastern Front, where the tactical situation made both sides' tanks vulnerable, somehow, during the course of an engagement.

As I and others have pointed out before, problems in the CMBB penetration algorithims make this more difficult, as the game makes Soviet AP weapons something like 10-20 per cent less effective than in real life. Maybe more.

And yes, I can back that up with facts. Lots of them.

There are ways an intelligent scenario designer understanding the nature of East Front combat, and the limitations of CMBB, can create a scenario where both German and Soviet players have a fair chance of winning. Handing one side invulnerable vehicles is almost always not the way to do that.

[JasonC]

75L24 or 50L42 against T-34s - beyond the earliest model - aren't fun. The III H with 30+30 front full can actually duel the thin turret T-34s at about 1000m - which is argubably quite unhistorical - but once the cast turrets and better show up, the Germans want better weapons.

Their doctrinal solution in this period is not tank based, it is towed guns. The Germans have plenty of towed guns that can deal with T-34s - 28mm sPzB, 50mm PAK, 105mm howitzer, 88mm Flak, later in 1942 the 75mm PAK varieties. From mid 1942 Marders are available.

They can also use hail fire from AFVs when they outnumber an opponent, which works against solo enemies but not really against full platoons. Pioneers give infantry AT. Air is another option. Historically, they won in this period through superior combined arms coordination, despite their AFVs being distinctly inferior.

But I don't agree that 50L60 is adequate to kill early 42 T-34s "at any range". When they still have 50mm fronts they are dominated by T-34s, and they need either T and a turret hit within 900m - a rare combination that the ammo typically doesn't last long enough to do, more than once per platoon - or flat turret hits within 400m or so, or side hits with good side angle. These aren't easy to get.

A realistic Russian tank mix at this date is 10% KVs or Lend Lease items, up to 50% T-34s, the rest lights split between T-60s and T-70s. The T-34 is not rare, therefore. It was the low point of the Russian fleet in numerical terms, but it was still larger than the German AFV fleet.

By the fall they have a much better force with 20+50 uparmored 50L60 IIIs, Marders, and the first sprinkle of IV longs (still thin front at first, and thus similar to Marder in gun-armor terms) and very rare long StuGs (3% of the fleet in late 42). I still wouldn't call that equality, but it is close enough to fight tanks with tanks.

They get superiority for the first time when the 80mm front Pz IV long becomes standard. They keep it right to the end. The switch pretty much exactly coincides with the strategic initiative switch - which incidentally is the strongest possible proof that vehicle quality was not the cause of the outcome. (Germans win when their tanks are worse and lose when they are better - for operational and strategic reasons, not tactical ones).

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But I don't agree that 50L60 is adequate to kill early 42 T-34s "at any range". When they still have 50mm fronts they are dominated by T-34s, and they need either T and a turret hit within 900m - a rare combination that the ammo typically doesn't last long enough to do, more than once per platoon - or flat turret hits within 400m or so, or side hits with good side angle. These aren't easy to get.

JasonC,

Hm. I'll yield to your experience, but to me it doesn't quite add up.

The 50mm AP round officially "beats" 77mm at 500 meters and 61mm at 1000m, which is somewhere between marginally and usefully more than the straight thickness of T-34 turret armor (depending on mark), but then the turret armor is slanted pretty well, and of course 50mm has less behind-armor effect, but then the gunner firing the 50mm has superior optics.

Sticking all that into the hopper, from what I've seen, the practical result is that at about 700m or lower T-34/76 must treat the 50mm PAK with respect - and if you're a smart Soviet you respect 50mm at all ranges.

700mm is a fairly standard engagement range if you ask me, your milage may vary.

[chiavarm]

Originally posted by JasonC:

p. 87 discussing the StuH talks about its weakness vs. enemy armor, because the low muzzle velocity of its HEAT ammo made it effective only at 500m. "At distances under 500m, as was already noted elsewhere, the front armor of the assault gun offered no protection from the fire of tank guns."

I thought muzzle velocity had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the heat round?

In fact I read somewhere that a heat round fired at long range would be more effective as the tragectory would cause the round to have a top down aspect and would impact the weaker top armour.

[Krautman]

Bigduke6,

i think JasonC is correct on the 50mml/60 issue. See, the penetration data of the gun makes it LOOK quite effective against T-34M41,42 and even 43 (45/65/70mm front turret); but the T-34's turret armour is sloped. Against an M41, a PzIII with 50l/60 might actually have a decent chance in a hull-down duel, but against M42 and M43, it will lose in most cases (at mid-long ranges).

I have just recently played "When Worlds Collide", and the l/60s have serious trouble against the M42.

About the optics- i think the german optics are mainly for faster target aquisition, except maybe late-war advanced optics (Panther etc).

The T-34s main gun seems quite accurate to me. In a recent self-made scenario, i had 3 PzIIIJ(long) against a single T-34M41, all were hull down, regular experience, warm weather, distance ~530m. The 3 PzIIIs got out 6 or so shots until the T-34 fired the first time; none hit. The T-34s second shot blew up a PzIII, its 5th did as well. The last PzIII finally did a turret penetration (the third) and knocked the T-34 out. I didn't count shots and hits, but the T-34 was much more accurate than any of the PzIIIs.

It is my personal impression that german 50mm long KwK accuracy isn't much greater than the russian 76,2 long's. (Same as for german infantry being inferiour. However, as i mostly play germans and shed tears for every digital man or tank lost, my opinion is surely biased)

It might be interesting to find someone who evenly plays both sides and ask him.

Chiavarm: A low muzzle velocity makes it hard to hit a target at long ranges, especially a moving one. Penetration, as you said, should be the same.

[ March 23, 2005, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Krautman ]

[Krautman]

JasonC wrote

"They get superiority for the first time when the 80mm front Pz IV long becomes standard. They keep it right to the end. The switch pretty much exactly coincides with the strategic initiative switch - which incidentally is the strongest possible proof that vehicle quality was not the cause of the outcome. (Germans win when their tanks are worse and lose when they are better - for operational and strategic reasons, not tactical ones)."

Maybe it is also an indication that besides armour and main gun, speed is another important feature of a tank (on an operational level)- the early war ones were surely faster than the later heavies. Getting your tanks quickly to where the enemy is weak, avoiding his strongpoints, might be useful.

Of course, in cmbb there is not much use in a PzII being quicker than a KV...