John Kettler Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Am not trying to revive the just locked Soviet ammo thread here, but rather, was intrigued by an info item therein, having to do with claims that a German crewed captured T-34 outperformed the original model, presumably with equal crew quality. Someone said that the Germans obtain target acquisition sooner because their T-34s have had the Russian optics swapped out for better German ones. If this is true, it's news to me. I knew that cupolas were installed on tanks which formerly had none, but thought the tanks were otherwise left unmodded. Seems to me that the German T-34 would have a big advantage over its counterpart when fighting buttoned, thanks to much better TC vision capability. Doctrinally, when Russian tanks are expecting contact, they button up. Am not sure how the game treats this. The other unknown is at the TC's personal optics level. The German Zeiss binoculars were renowned and highly prized as war trophies, whereas I've yet to encounter a single German remark favoring Russian binoculars or field glasses. Does the game model a TC's personal optics in considering when target acquisition occurs for unbuttoned tanks? Don't know, but I'd like to. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fußball Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 The only complaint I have about the captured T34s is that they do not contain a radio when they should. I am geussing that maybe BFC used the same data sheet for the captured T34 as the Russian T34 maybe? Tschüß! Erich 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by John Kettler: Am not trying to revive the just locked Soviet ammo thread here, but rather, was intrigued by an info item therein, having to do with claims that a German crewed captured T-34 outperformed the original model, presumably with equal crew quality. Someone said that the Germans obtain target acquisition sooner because their T-34s have had the Russian optics swapped out for better German ones.I believe the game models an improved captured T34, instead of a standard one (not all T34 or other Soviet tanks captured were modified). But I have a hard time believing that optics modifications were done in the field on captured tanks, but I never looked into that. It just does not strike me as a worthwhile effort to do so. So optics should not be a reason for the discrepancy. The cupola should not be a reason for a discrepancy in case of unbuttoned spotting. If I am wrong and CMBB models this, it would say so in the unit description window, where any optics other than standard are described. I am not with the game at the moment, so can not check. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Kelly stated that both tanks were un-buttoned, both had their commanders stood up in the turret and looking around but that the German T34 always acquired a visual first, under equal conditions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Forget it, there's nothing in this. I was just plain wrong. I remember testing it because we were facing a lot of captured T-34s in a campaign I was playing. Evidently my sample must not have been large enough because in the test I did just now (T-34 M1942, range 400m, tanks facing away from each other on a pooltable) they came out pretty even (150 iterations 85 - 63 in favor of the Germans with 2 undecided). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 It is not only wrong it is laughably wrong. It isn't just vision, it is gun and armor. The German T-34 will kill the Russian one at ranges at which it is itself invulnerable. Just utterly absurd. Of course it is trotted out as an example of pure bias, which it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Bull**** jason, that is now twice you have said the team was biased. Show me proof that at the time that the game was made, that the team was biased. Valera from the Russian Battlefield was involved heavily in the making of the game, and I know, I got him in. Now, if you are saying he is German centric, please show me your proof. Are there errors in the game? Yep, but honest errors and not because the "German fans" had influence. As for the more penetration, i believe the german t34 has different ammo then the Russian t34. It has the same armour and the same spotting chance with the commander exposed and has a slightly greater chance when buttoned due to the cupola. I don't remember if optics were changed or not. You were not in the alpha and beta testing. You didn't see the debates on the figures and the input from Russian sources. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but saying the game is purposefuly biased is pure bull****. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfbat Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 = = = I believe the german t34 has different ammo then the Russian t34.= = = It did and so did the captured Pak the Germans used against the former owners. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by rune: Bull**** jason, that is now twice you have said the team was biased. Show me proof that at the time that the game was made, that the team was biased. Valera from the Russian Battlefield was involved heavily in the making of the game, and I know, I got him in. Now, if you are saying he is German centric, please show me your proof. Are there errors in the game? Yep, but honest errors and not because the "German fans" had influence. As for the more penetration, i believe the german t34 has different ammo then the Russian t34. It has the same armour and the same spotting chance with the commander exposed and has a slightly greater chance when buttoned due to the cupola. I don't remember if optics were changed or not. You were not in the alpha and beta testing. You didn't see the debates on the figures and the input from Russian sources. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but saying the game is purposefuly biased is pure bull****. Rune Rune, I have never been willing to put it down to bias because a biased team wouldn't have felt the need to do such things as explain the poor quality of Soviet troops in '41 in the manual. Having said that, CMBB in its ripe old age is being used increasingly for things that go beyond the single battle where these inaccuracies add up to a distinct disadvantage. CMC is a case in point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 The Feldkanone 295® had a remanufactured breech. As far as I know not all of the captured guns were remanufactured though, it depended on time and place of capture. Before believing that all/most/any T34 were remanufactured in the same way to take German 7,5cm ammunition, I'd like to see some evidence for that. I could not find any, but that does of course not mean that it did not happen. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Andreas, I have two sources that state the T34 had ammo designed for it in retooled factories. I'll email you with them when I get home [also have a follow-up to ask you on the thing you are helping me with for ToW]. of course not all t34s were redone, and often times they were just field modified. The thought at the time if I remember correctly, is to model the upgraded gun since the factories were changed for a reason, and it was thought to be the most common of the captured modifications. I did find on the net that some t34s were up armoured with schrutzen [spelling?]. Sgt_Kelly, I totally understand, however since I have been working with the guys since the CMBO alpha time [Even pre-madmatt] it just urks me that things are said without any proof, rather just with hearsay. I WAS there, and I saw how much was changed, and the great input from valera. [He asked for the change to 2 rounds per minute for the one example] Heck, a lot of the dicussion is above me...I am still not sold either way on the great StuG debate on the two armoured plates effectiveness. If the guys who know a lot more then me still cannot agree, I am not about to throw in an uninformed opinion. I remember when it was found the definitions of penetration were different for the Russians and the Germans. I remember the great 88mm debate on penetration for the Tiger II's gun. I am lucky enough to get the internal emails that even the testers do not get. The game chartered territory that no other computer game did...people forget that. I remember proving a few points to the guys and getting additional equipment in, for both sides. This was what...over 6 years ago? Sure, more things have come to light since the game was released, but it was based fairly and with no bias with the best information available at the time. Mistakes made? hindsight says yes. I can list out all the changes I wanted starting from individual armour plate and impacts to better HE effects on tanks from the bigger guns. hey, with CMX2, I know I will see some of these things. The guys have already included things in CMSF that I found. Will there be Abram's 120mm cannister type of debates? Of course... no one and no game is perfect. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Just to add my two cents as a beta tester of CMBB. Any accusation of systematic bias in any direction flies in the face of what I observed during the discussions on the Beta forum, and can only come from someone who was not involved. To give an example: ISTR that the bad quality Soviet ammo is due to research results provided by Valera - hardly a pro-German source. The (not uncontroversial) inclusion of HE for LL 2-pdrs also does not strike me as particularly pro-German. There are elements where I wish I had made a stronger case when there was the possibility, e.g. about the inclusion of the 122mm howitzer and maybe the 152mm gun-howitzer as an on-map gun. But Rune is quite right, a lot of things we know now that we did not know then. But what I did know then and do know now is that there was no pro-German bias visible in anyone on the team. An honest attempt was made to bring out a game that was as close to reality as is possible, considering the constraints every project works under. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Like I say, and have always said, CM does it best and has always done it best, based on fair objective means with zero bias or attempt at bias. There are a whole raft of other developers who would do well to come and get themselves some of this integrity, instead of handing out the revisionist pap of which we've all become so weary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 It is deplorable how time and again the focus of a thread becomes the most contentious point raised in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Looking at the penetration data, the captured T34 does better at range, and strangely it gets better later in the war. Which to me indicates a strange effect with the lower-quality Soviet ammo/typos, but in any case a bug of some sort. Even if the ammo is supposed to be better for whatever reason, there is no reason why it should be better in 1945 than it is in 1943. What's the story on the reverse, captured Panthers and Stugs? An article I found on the matter indicated that some conversions were done on company level (e.g. installing additional alround vision equipment for the gunlayer), but that the optics remained unchanged. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inola Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 There is ideas, captured AFVs were not changed with patches-perhaps, they were lost from changing due to not very large use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: What's the story on the reverse, captured Panthers and Stugs? Their peformance is unchanged; a June 1942 StuGIIIF shoots the exact same round, with exact same effectivness, as a May 1945 StuGIIIF. Captured Panthers don't have Tungsten available right off, but by the end of their availability they do. I also found out captured Panthers are only available from August '43 - December '44. I wonder where that came from. Haven't checked whether a Soviet Panther shoots better or worse rounds than a German Panther. I'm not sure I want to know, the "superiority" of the German 76mm round to the Soviet 76mm round is bad enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Originally posted by Bigduke6: ... the "superiority" of the German 76mm round to the Soviet 76mm round is bad enough.As I recall, the Germans rechambered many captured Soviet 7.62mm guns to fire the same ammunition as the Pak40. I assume that is where the performance difference comes from. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 If we assume everything was rechambered, the performance should improve. This is indicated by von Senger und Etterlin, who explicitly states that. But this really only applies to the captured field gun. For the T34 however it appears it is not modeled re-chambered, since it still uses the Soviet blunt-nosed round. At least if my memory about the unit information window does not trick me. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 No, I believe that is a bug. When changed to the German ammo, I think they forgot to change the screens. I distinctly remember the discussion on the german rounds for the t34. Also remember the screens are for information only, the formula used changed. I could ask Charles if he remembers, but he is brain jar deep in CMSF at the moment. Andreas, I would up refereeing a college game last night, will follow up tonight with the emails. Ahhh...found one reference. Zaloga, Steven J., James Grandsen, states the Germans retooled factories to make ammunition for the T34. It does not state rechambered, so not sure on that. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 If they had to retool factories, that would indicate to me that they did not use their standard ammo, unlike in the captured field guns, which were rechambered to take the standard ammo for which, presumably, not retooling was needed. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 If anyone is very keen, compare the penetration stats for the captured and the Soviet field gun, and compare the differences to the differences in the T34 penetration. One more reason why I do not think the game models a rechambered T34 is that at shorter range and no angle the penetration value is identical. Maybe it would help if somebody could post the values here? All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Correct, I believe they made the ammo with the different materials and powder. I know they were not blunt nose. If I remember right, I think Byrd got involved. I may have this confused with the re-chambered field gun, and maybe when values changed they forgot to change the German side. What the heck, I'll email the guys and see if anyone remember from that far back. Either way, for those who think a bias, please feel free to join the conspiracy threads in the general forum. I'll email them now. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Just to make that clear again, my points here should not be taken to mean that I support any conspiracy or bias theory. In my view this is honest error in an area that was not see as of prime importance (considering the rather low number of tanks this concerned IRL). It's a shame the beta forum is gone, would be nice to be able to go and look it up again. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Yeah exactly...I was looking for some of the old notes and wanted to look at the forum, but couldn't. However the explination is far more simplier then a bias or conspiracy. I just heard from Charles: First, I did remember right, the factories were retooled to make ammunition. However, we could not get enough information on the ammo, so both tanks have EXACTLY the same ammo. So, why the difference in the penetration values? Easy, this is the exact quote from Charles' brain jar: "Are you talking about the penetration numbers printed on the screen? The difference is that the numbers are versus the "typical enemy". So the Russian T-34 is shooting at "typical German armor" in the chart, and the captured (now German) T-34 is shooting at "typical Russian armor". The difference you're seeing is in the armor and yeah, the German armor is a little higher quality." I must now feed Charles chocolate, so there you have it. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.