Captured Russian tank modeling

[Andreas]

That leaves the strange changes over time, but I think Charles has earned his chocolate.

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

Just to pipe in on the "bias" issue. I have to disagree with both JasonC and Rune. We were biased when we made CMBO and CMBB. Yup, I'm here to say that Charles and I had an agenda, and it is an agenda that we pursued with a passion. As such, we should be considered biased. And what bias would that be? To kick a hole as big as we could in the portrayal of all things German as über. That's right kiddies... we were biased against the German stuff. How so?

What we did was start the games on the idea that the German stuff has always been overmodled. That is, in a way, a bias. Where Rune is very correct is that we did not allow that bias to purposefully under model the German stuff. Meaning, our goal was a well researched, balanced account of WWII. We just set out questioning anything German MORE than we would anything else because we assumed there was a greater chance of BS that needed to be cut through. Experience showed us that wasn't always the case, but it was often enough to validate our approach.

When we released CMBO the loudest complaints came from German tank worshipers. They were outraged that a normal 75mm Sherman could knock out their Tigers. They were totally pissed off that Panthers could be taken out by Bazookas. We had thread after thread of this whining and accusations that we were biased in favor of US equipment. We were, afterall, American so case closed. They overlooked the fact that we had the math to back up our position. They overlooked the fact that we were the first, and possibly only, wargame to simulate poor quality ammo, and that ammo was American. So on and so forth.

When we released CMBB we got similarly pounded by the pro-German camp for all kinds of things. Like in that other thread I locked up, they expected their Tigers to take out 10 T-34s each, just like they expected them to take out 5 Shermans each in CMBO. Same crap, different game.

Well, as we all know wargames before CM were pretty much paper and dice or some other sort of hitpoint type arrangement. We were the first wargame, and still the only one, to use real ballistics and armor physics. No abstractions. Sure, there are some limitations built into what we made, sure those limitations can cause some events (or fail to cause some events) from time to time, but that's just the way it had to be. No bais there, just straight and painfully researched math. If the math makes something über in some cases, then they were likely über in those conditions in the real war. If something is unter in some cases, then they were likely unter in those conditions in the real war. To argue otherwise requires counter evidence, not flawed logic, poor quality game tests, or a chip on one's shoulder. Otherwise such a person is just a crank.

And so here we are... someone with a stick up his bum making accusations that he has no right to make. He is so completely wrong, so utterly off the mark, that I've had to come over here and give him a little spanking. I don't think much more is needed since Rune did the really big smackdown, like mentioning a key member of our team happened to be a Russian with more knowledge about his country's stuff in his little finger than JasonC has in his entire gray mass. He was happy with what we produced, so either he's not the expert he appears to be or he is German "fanboy" as JasonC has claimed. I think the answer is somewhat self evident.

And that kiddies, is the truth

Steve

[ September 22, 2006, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

About captured Panther availability...

IIRC the Panther was used as a double stopgap. The Soviets needed to rebuild their tank strength and they had enough captured equipment lying around to use. Why not use it? The Germans did the same with T-34s, and to a lesser extent other vehicles. The second reason is that the Panther was really, really good. Only logical that it be used against its makers.

As Soviet tank designs and production caught up with the losses of 1943 there was less and less need to use captured German equipment. Captured stuff is always harder to use in any case due to parts and expertise having to be improvised. With the Germans pushed back into Germany, their tank force shattered, and the Soviet force stuffed with armor... it makes sense that interest in using captured equipment went down.

Why December 1944 for the last date of use? I don't remember. All I know is we didn't pull that number out of our butts. If we didn't have some sense of when they were pulled from service we would have likely left them in until the end of the war. The fact that we didn't means that some bit of info suggested December was basically it for captured Panthers.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

I just conducted four firing tests, twenty German T-34s vs. Soviet T-34s. As noted by others, the CM engine doesn't use the numbers in the unit information table, but a much more complicated algorithm.

I will note right off that the unit information menu nevertheless makes clear German 76mm APBC performs better than Soviet APBC, roughly by 5-15 per cent. Basically, the longer the range and the more acute the armor engagement, the higher the advantage of the German ammunition.

In my tests, the Germans killed the Soviets at about three to one, depending on the range and type of engagement. The closer the firers are together, the more lopsided the German victory.

At 800 meters plus from hull down the German advantage drops to about 2-1. At 800 meters hull up the Germans killed Soviets 3-1.

At 400 meters the Germans firing at hull down Soviet T-34s killed about 4-1; and at hull up it was a whopping 6-1.

In all but the long-range hull down test, the German side required less than a minute to destroy between 10 - 17 T-34s.

I would say the German advantage is clear and lopsided, in spite of the fact that both sides are firing the exact same ammunition at one another, at the exact same tank.

The difference clearly is that German 76mm gets lots of marginal penetrations, when the Soviets do not. The difference is not big so at about 800 meters or more, and I would guess that by 1000 - 1200 meters the German advantage would pretty much to be lost.

This of course means that at normal combat ranges, the German advantage is devastating.

My tests showed conclusively (at least for me) the armor of German T-34 built in Lenigrad or Urals resists Soviet blunt-nosed APBC better than the armor of a Soviet T-34, also built in Lenigrad or the Urals, resists precisely the same armor piercing round, but fired out of a German T-34.

:confused:

We return you to your regular programming about how if some one complains about CM armor engagements he is an uninformed crank whom should be ignored.

[Andreas]

It's when you move on from the observation to claim pro-German bias that you are called a crank Stephan.

How did you test this? Did both sides have ammo in your test scenario?

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Just ran my tests, and I can confidently state that what Stephan tested was the effect of the cupola.

Test setup is a shooting range. One side has no main gun ammo. Eight lanes, tanks are blocked from maneuvering by being placed in rough terrain.

1st test - Germans with ammo distance 740-780m. Result is slaughter. All Soviet T34 are penetrated over the whole frontal arc. Occasional partial penetrations. At the end of turn one, all Soviet tanks are gone.

2nd test - same distance, Soviets with ammo.

German tanks are not penetrated either upper or lower hull, except for rare partial penetrations. By turn three the Soviet gunners appear to aim for the turret, and now it is quick - within a turn and a half the German tanks are gone.

3rd test - 3-400m, Soviet tanks have ammo. Slaughter, all German tanks are gone by the end of turn one.

Conclusion: Soviet ammo in T34 is significantly weaker than German ammo in T34. This stops to make a difference somewhere between 750 and 400m. Beyond 750m, only take on the Germans in a hull-down duel. Further testing could find the sweet spot, but I can't be bothered.

In terms of Stephan's results, the determining factor must have been crew quality and optics. If at shorter distances the Soviets get slaughtered it has nothing to do with ammo quality (see above), but with target acquisition, and maybe crew quality.

Am I right Stephan?

All the best

Andreas

[Bigduke6]

Adreyus,

Have I ever claimed an intentional pro-German bias was built in the game?

Inavertant error perhaps. Failure to check the game engine against what I consider one of basic facts of the East Front - certainly. Unwillingness to accept as factual the general opinion of Red Army veterans and the received wisdom of Soviet historians, in favor of a result produced by number crunching - absolutely.

But a concerted and meditated effort by CM's designers to screw Soviet players? You'll look a long time before you find a post of mine asserting that, Andrias my friend.

I ran the test four times. Two ranges, 400 meters and 800 meters. Twenty tanks on each side, twenty lanes. One test at each range hull-up, one test hull-down. Both sides had ammo.

*break*

Look, I just did it again. 400 meters, hull down, each vehicle inits own lane. Supposedly identical tanks with identical ammunition and identical crews. The Germans have cupolas. The Soviets don't, although at 400 meters it shouldn't make much difference.

Results, in terms of damage received

1st Minute:

Soviets 7 KO, 2 Bad Morale

Germans 3 KO, 1 Bad Morale, 1 Gun hit

2nd Minute:

Soviets: 4 more KO, 1 more Gun hit

Germans: 2 more KO

So this time it came out somewhere inbetween two and three to one, in the German favor. Not nearly as lopsided for the Germans as the last time.

Still well beyond what we can reasonably expect if we're trying to replicate RL. Just having a cupola shouldn't give that kind of advantage, I think. It's the same damn tank with the same ammunition and the same quality crew. Performance should be close to identical. It isn't.

From watching the films the reason is obvious: Germans hit a little bit more accurately, but like I said before, the real difference is their rounds penetrate more often. Same gun, and according to Rune we now know it's the same round.

I'll be durned if I can figure it out.

:confused:

Steve,

On the Panthers I was just wondering, no nasty insinuations meant. I've read of cases of captured Panthers being operated right up to the end of the war, but it was onesies and twosies mostly, and I was just kinda curious what logic you guys used for the December cutoff. I've never heard of proper Mech units kitted out with Panthers like maybe Shermans or Valentines. I've read of a few AG regiments with StuGs.

From what I've read the Soviets liked Panther because it could kill whatever it shot at, and they sort of used it like an impromptu Firefly. Not the same ratio obviously, but the same idea.

Also, some of the more on-the-ball infantry divisions apparently solved the armor support problem by forming impromptu "trophy" panzer companies. There was no rule against it, but supply was your own problem. But again, this was so unsystematic, I just was curious why it stops in the game in December '44. Seemed arbitrary to me is all.

I would assume Panther popularity dropped in the Red Army when the 122mm and 100mm got fielded in sufficient quanties, but I really have no idea about this obscure and fascinating topic.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Adreyus,

Have I ever claimed an intentional pro-German bias was built in the game?

I did not say you did Stephan, and I do not remember that I have ever seen you say so. But the last line in your previous post indicated to me that you thought everybody who complained ran a risk of being labeled an uninformed crank. That reading of your line led to my reply.

Let's move on.

Now, the only way you can test this is by not giving ammo to one side. Otherwise crew quality and optics come in. As I just found, in terms of raw penetration the Soviet T34 has no issues I could find at a distance of 350-400m. I'd re-run it if the result was not so obvious.

They have clear issues hitting at 750-780m, compared to the Germans. But not at the shorter distance if they are left alone, i.e. no return fire.

But I would expect a cupola to make a significant difference, even at short distances. Also, in at least some cases the Germans installed additional optical devices for the gunlayer, as pointed out above. No idea of the German T34 models this.

All the best

Andreas

[RaggedyMan]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Adreyus,

Look, I just did it again. 400 meters, hull down, each vehicle inits own lane. Supposedly identical tanks with identical ammunition and identical crews. The Germans have cupolas. The Soviets don't, although at 400 meters it shouldn't make much difference.

Results, in terms of damage received

1st Minute:

Soviets 7 KO, 2 Bad Morale

Germans 3 KO, 1 Bad Morale, 1 Gun hit

2nd Minute:

Soviets: 4 more KO, 1 more Gun hit

Germans: 2 more KO

So this time it came out somewhere inbetween two and three to one, in the German favor. Not nearly as lopsided for the Germans as the last time.

Still well beyond what we can reasonably expect if we're trying to replicate RL. Just having a cupola shouldn't give that kind of advantage, I think. It's the same damn tank with the same ammunition and the same quality crew. Performance should be close to identical. It isn't.

From watching the films the reason is obvious: Germans hit a little bit more accurately, but like I said before, the real difference is their rounds penetrate more often. Same gun, and according to Rune we now know it's the same round.

I'll be durned if I can figure it out.

At the risk of sounding obtuse (I am most decidedly non-grog) I think I might have an answer for why the germans may seem to do better in your test (I've read Andreas' subsequent response on his testing methods, so I won't rehash the difference).

If the soviet crews are taking hits while trying to fire on the german crews, then might they be experiencing some duress, basically, aren't they going to be rattled by the incoming fire? For some reason my addled brain is making me think that german crews will be better trained than their *equivalent* soviet crews - which is to say that even though the tank may be taking hits, perhaps the german loader keeps close to his rate of reload, the german gunner is able to not instinctively flinch at each incoming hit, commander still effectively spotting targets, etc.

I think I remember reading that the TacAI modeled that sort of thing, but again I could be wildly off base.

I think something else to look at for your particular test might be number of hits against a given tank against its number of shots per turn. I'd wager a quarter or a shilling or whatever that the german tank crews are probably better at delivering fire while taking fire than the equivalent soviet crews.

And I'm not trying to imply that this is a bias, since the germans obviously had 2 more years of tank warfare behind them than the soviets by the time barbarossa began, but even without knowing the details of the game it would make sense that their training would be above average and more effective once engaged.

Maybe try soviet veterans against german regulars?

[Andreas]

That is an additional problem if Stephan has tested before summer 1944 and used identical quality, since the Soviets are given a step down. For obvious reasons it doesn't matter with my methodology.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

The extra kills are due to hull hits that ricochet from the Germans but penetrate or partially penetrate the Russians, with effect. Slope is hurting the Russian rounds more than the German rounds. Oh gosh, the supposedly irrelevant data window shows the German gun with much higher numbers at 60 degree slope. What a coincidence.

The guys who made the game are perfectly willing to learn some things and the fix some mistakes. Others they are not. CMBB is a great game, that is why I am still playing it years after it came out, and providing players with scenarios etc. But it has its flaws and players need to know about them. Trying to get them to believe they aren't there is beyond the competence of the designers. They merely made the game - we play it - and we play it how we jolly well please in full awareness of all its weaknesses.

[Bigduke6]

Andreas,

First, what does this mean?

"since the Soviets are given a step down."

What is a "step down"? What does it do, who gave it to the Soviets, and on what grounds?

Your conclusions about the effectiveness about the cupola seem to make at least some sense. The Soviets are getting hit more, getting rattled more, and so net result the Germans are throwing more rounds and thus achieving more penetrations. Fair enough.

The only problem is that it didn't really look that way when I did my tests. What I saw was roughly the same number of hits, the German advantage was marginally better, but better German AP performance was distinctly better.

Ergo, based on my subjective impression, it is the round, not the cupola. More research needed here, obviously. Fair enough you don't have time.

Apropos Raggedy Man's comments, as far as I know there is nothing in the game engine that should make a Regular German crew to be rattled slower than a Regular Russian crew. One of the revolutionary aspects of CM was that it treated men in combat equally.

Of course, if there is some "discount" on Soviet crew quality built into the CMBB engine, I'm very interested in hearing about it. But like I said, AFAIK nothing like that exists.

Question: Do you know if the game makes Regular Russian tank crews more susceptible to being rattled froom near-penetration hits than German tank crews also of Regular quality?

Next question: How does the presence of a cupola allow a German-fired round to have a moderate chance of penetration at medium range, while if the same round fired by a Soviet at the same target has a poor chance?

This flatly contradicts what Rune said earlier in this thread, which is that both tanks use the exact same APBC round. Therefore, the rounds' performance should be identical.

Your test results show that it is not, and I quote:

Conclusion: Soviet ammo in T34 is significantly weaker than German ammo in T34.

To me, it makes no sense that Soviet ammo, simply by dint of being fired by Soviet pixies, would be be weaker than German ammo. After all, in both your and my tests, it's supposedly the same round, manufactured supposedly in the same place.

Ok, now onto ammunition quality.

I don't understand why German ammunition for a Soviet-designed weapon system should perform better in CM, than Soviet-manufactured ammunition for the very same weapon - by the mid-war period.

Certainly, there is evidence the Russians had ammunition quality problems in the early part of the war. The game reflects that, and good for the game.

There is also evidence the Russians fixed those ammunition problems as the war progressed.

I am personally convinced the game does not reflect that change sufficiently, and that that failure is a key element to the "untermensch discount" (a shorthand term meaning ahistorical weakness, not a devious plot hatched by you, Rune and Charles) faced by Soviet players in CM.

Here is my logic:

That Soviet ammunition should work by midwar I believe intuitively makes sense. Battlefield reliability was important to Soviet designers. People who came up with basic, effective weapons like the T-34, the PPSh, and the M-13 rocket would logically not tolerate crappy ammunition any longer than they had too.

As a specific example, besides ongoing improvals, the Soviets fielded an improved version of the standard 76mm APBC in 1944. I'll track down a link if you need it. This is not the sub-caliber round, but just an improved round. The game reflects the fielding of the sub-caliber round, and it certainly reflects the ammunition quality problems of the early part of the war.

The game does not refect the fielding of the 1944 round, period. I am stating that as a flat fact, and if some one can contradict me, I'll admit I'm wrong. But I think it's impossible.

Now, any game can't put in everything and, as noted above, I am not accusing the designers of an evil plot to make the Nazi fanboys happy.

It's just that one would expect (well, I would expect) a World War Two East Front simulation that does cool obscure things like tracking when the Soviets did and did not operate captured Panther tanks, would not also track quality progress for such a basic round as the Soviet 76mm AP shell.

As it is, in the game, the Soviet 76mm round performance appears to be most effective in 1941, then gets a lot worse as the war progresses, by 1943 improves a bit, and then plateaus out. It's performance doesn't change, in the game, from 1943 - 45.

In fact, the Soviets continually improved their munitions, and specifically they fielded an improved version of the 76mm APBC in 1944.

I am speculating, but I am pretty sure what happened was that the game was designed to give Soviets crappy ammunition in the beginning, but as the time frame continues the game does not improve Soviet ammunition as much as it did during the actual war.

Historically, the evidence seems to confirm this.

Consider the well-known mid-war 76mm round's absolute inability, in CM, to pentrate the front of a StuG, improved MarkIII, or MKIV.

In the actual conflict, by midwar the Soviets planned on doing, and indeed did just that at something under 500 meters.

We all have seen the drawing of the Kursk battle positions, and of the hand-out sheet given to Red Army soldiers on what kills German panzers, at what range.

The survival of the Soviet state depended on getting the tactics right. The SOP was 76mm AP should begin to defeat German 80mm plate at the closer ranges, say 400 - 500 meters and less.

Tiger I was known to be tougher, BTW.

Since the Soviets managed to defeat the Germans at Kursk using those very tactics, built on that very 76mm weapon, I accept that as historical evidence the tactics were valid.

And as you are quite aware, using those tactics in CM will not produce the same result. PanzerIIIs and StuGs engaged at 400 - 500 meters by ZiS-3 will simply ping the hits, and then destroy the Soviet 76mm weapons with imunity.

I think the superiority of German-crewed T-34s over Soviet-crewed T-34s in the 400 - 800 meter range envelope (roughly) is more strong evidence that the game engine gets Soviet 76mm wrong to some extent. Since this is the same weapon that also fails to defeat StuGs etc. in the game, I am drawn to the conclusion that the problem with the Soviet 76mm in CM is wider than just T-34 vs. captured T-34 egagements.

Thus, I think it is also minor but not conclusive evidence that the game overall under-rates Soviet AP performance.

Ok, now shoot some holes in my thinking.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Andreas,

First, what does this mean?

"since the Soviets are given a step down."

What is a "step down"? What does it do, who gave it to the Soviets, and on what grounds?

Up to sometime in 1944, Soviet units of any experience level are treated the same as German units of the next lower experience level. This was a game design decision by the game designers. It's in the manual somewhere. I.e. if you buy Soviet regulars, they perform as Green, etc.pp.

This will affect your test results if both sides have ammo.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The survival of the Soviet state depended on getting the tactics right. The SOP was 76mm AP should begin to defeat German 80mm plate at the closer ranges, say 400 - 500 meters and less.

Tiger I was known to be tougher, BTW.

Since the Soviets managed to defeat the Germans at Kursk using those very tactics, built on that very 76mm weapon, I accept that as historical evidence the tactics were valid.

Non sequitur I am afraid. And contrary to the post by that Russian chap in the locked thread, where it states that in 1943, 76mm AP shattered at 200m against Tiger side armour. Most tanks at Kursk were not Tigers. Actual Tiger TWOs were quite low, AFAIK, so this would argue against the ability of the 76mm to do much serious damage. It would still be able to cause minor damage (equivalent to gun hits in CMBB) that render the Tiger hors de combat for the specific battle, or a few days. So I think you can not draw the conclusion from Kursk that the 76mm worked against Tiger side armour at 4-500m, especially when Soviet test reports say it did not. Stugs etc. could be defeated through the side armour.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Ok, now shoot some holes in my thinking.

I hope the above accomplishes that. I would however like to say that I agree with you on the matter of differential penetration between the German and the Soviet T34. They should have equal penetration, and neither of them should be able to get through Tiger side and Stug frontal armour at anything but very short ranges, with normal AP. Again, I feel the game undermodels the 76mm here, by making this point-blank, or indeed no penetration, when it should be 100-150m.

All the best

Andreas

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just to pipe in on the "bias" issue. I have to disagree with both JasonC and Rune. We were biased when we made CMBO and CMBB. Yup, I'm here to say that Charles and I had an agenda, and it is an agenda that we pursued with a passion. As such, we should be considered biased. And what bias would that be? To kick a hole as big as we could in the portrayal of all things German as über. That's right kiddies... we were biased against the German stuff. How so?

What we did was start the games on the idea that the German stuff has always been overmodled. That is, in a way, a bias. Where Rune is very correct is that we did not allow that bias to purposefully under model the German stuff. Meaning, our goal was a well researched, balanced account of WWII. We just set out questioning anything German MORE than we would anything else because we assumed there was a greater chance of BS that needed to be cut through. Experience showed us that wasn't always the case, but it was often enough to validate our approach.

When we released CMBO the loudest complaints came from German tank worshipers. They were outraged that a normal 75mm Sherman could knock out their Tigers. They were totally pissed off that Panthers could be taken out by Bazookas. We had thread after thread of this whining and accusations that we were biased in favor of US equipment. We were, afterall, American so case closed. They overlooked the fact that we had the math to back up our position. They overlooked the fact that we were the first, and possibly only, wargame to simulate poor quality ammo, and that ammo was American. So on and so forth.

When we released CMBB we got similarly pounded by the pro-German camp for all kinds of things. Like in that other thread I locked up, they expected their Tigers to take out 10 T-34s each, just like they expected them to take out 5 Shermans each in CMBO. Same crap, different game.

Well, as we all know wargames before CM were pretty much paper and dice or some other sort of hitpoint type arrangement. We were the first wargame, and still the only one, to use real ballistics and armor physics. No abstractions. Sure, there are some limitations built into what we made, sure those limitations can cause some events (or fail to cause some events) from time to time, but that's just the way it had to be. No bais there, just straight and painfully researched math. If the math makes something über in some cases, then they were likely über in those conditions in the real war. If something is unter in some cases, then they were likely unter in those conditions in the real war. To argue otherwise requires counter evidence, not flawed logic, poor quality game tests, or a chip on one's shoulder. Otherwise such a person is just a crank.

And so here we are... someone with a stick up his bum making accusations that he has no right to make. He is so completely wrong, so utterly off the mark, that I've had to come over here and give him a little spanking. I don't think much more is needed since Rune did the really big smackdown, like mentioning a key member of our team happened to be a Russian with more knowledge about his country's stuff in his little finger than JasonC has in his entire gray mass. He was happy with what we produced, so either he's not the expert he appears to be or he is German "fanboy" as JasonC has claimed. I think the answer is somewhat self evident.

And that kiddies, is the truth

Steve

Funny you should mention that. I remember a CMBB game me and my brother had a couple of years ago, where he attempted to rush a Tiger1 he knew I had around a corner of a woods with twelve T34/85s. The Tiger took out every single one of them, withstanding multiple hits itself.

Ten to one worked out splendidly on that occasion.

I also remember when we decided to do that hoary old five-to-one Tiger vs Sherman gig, did it a number of times in fact. The Tiger never quite made it, though it did manage four kills and an immobilisation in the end.

So please don't be sneering at what you consider to be German tank fan-boys mate, you're not the only one who has done his research and has a valid opinion. Indeed, your own game has borne out my expectations of German armor performance on more than one occasion. No, the Tiger is not invulnerable, and nor should it be. But used properly it totally dominates the battlefield and kicks arse...just like the real ones did.

[Hensworth]

The only reference I could find in the manual to the inferior troop quality thing is on page 219 :

"QBs apply the experience setting (low/medium/high) appropriately to the various forces available. For example, "high quality" (Note : as set in one of the parameter screens) Russian troops in 1941 will only be Regular."

This suggests that it only affects QBs and doesn't actually change the performance of the experience categories you set in the editor. I.e. a regular Soviet squad is always regular, never green. I also don't think this goes all the way up to 1944. In fact I seem to remember this was limited to 1941, although I might have got that impression from the fact that that is the year mentioned in the quote above.

If I'm not mistaken, the 1944 cut-off pertains instead to the Soviets switching generally to APBC (which I presume refers mainly to 85mm and is also mentioned in the manual).

My thinking on the 76mm issue is largely in line with BigDuke6's. It doesn't look like anyone can prove conclusively that Soviet 76mm AT was better than it is in CMBB. However, if you expose yourself to prolonged fighting against StuGs in 1942 and 1943 as I saw in Onion Wars, you get the distinct impression that there's nothing you can do. I for one am inclined to accept it the way it is in terms of relative performance.

Perhaps we need to look at the pricing system instead.

StuGs are significantly cheaper than T-34s because they have neither a turret nor, on the earlier models, an MG. But this means - even with rarity on - that the Soviet player faces more StuGs than he has T-34s when in reality it was the other way around.

On average two T-34s to take on a Tiger likewise seems a bit off.

I think people who put together scenarios for CMC will have to think about numbers and not use this pricing system as a guideline.

In metacampaigns that use a purchasing system, you have a very hard time explaining to the German side that their tanks are too cheap.

[Andreas]

Anyone who designs a scenario based on the pricing system designs a scenario not worth playing.

You may refer to this 'The First Law of Scenario Design by Andreas' if you want to.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Thanks for digging through the manual BTW. I'll check this in-game later today. It could be that the old memory is playing tricks on me again, so disregard all I said until I get back to you.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

On the done to death 76mm issue that keeps coming back from the grave, the performance shown in the game for the Russian 76mm is clearly too low as a matter of history, not speculation of any kind. At 500m, they should penetrate 80mm plate. Beyond it they should not (going through a region of partials in the 400-600 range if you like, etc).

There are Elephant wrecks at Kursk with 76mm holes in them, through 80mm side plates.

German manuals themselves explain that the 80mm front of StuGs and StuHs provided "no protection" against Russian 76mm inside of 500m.

Russian manuals sold on this site give opening ranges (when to fire) of 400-600m. Reason obvious.

Meanwhile the actual mistakes in the game exceed the uberStuG not dying inside 500m. The uberStuG won't die to 85mm at 800m in 1943. Even Rexford admitted this is completely wrong.

The culprit is almost certainly double or triple counting of shatter, metallurgical, and national measurement difference effects.

As for the nonsense about T-34 differences reflecting a cupola, shoot the German TCs before the fight and they will still penetrate the upper front hull when the reverse is impossible. The German is given vastly improved performance against steeply sloped plate, that is the cause. This was probably meant to model APCBC (the better the BC the easier to "grip" 60 degree slope, in general) but is historically unjustified because they both used the same round.

[Andreas]

Quite so on the cupola point Jason, and apologies for my error. Something I completely overlooked last night was that the kills were all front turret penetrations. The Soviet 76mm fails at 350m against German t34 frontal armour except the turret. At best it achieves partial penetrations, but these are rare. The German 76mm against Soviet t34 has no problems at all.

Regarding the experience, I checked now.

Soviet regular rifle squad in 1943 has the same delays as a German squad if it is in command (14 secs). But when it is out of command it moves up to 31 secs, while the German gets 21 secs. A veteran Soviet rifle squad out of command gets 21 secs (like German regular), and when in command gets 10 secs, like the German veteran.

This is with a scenario, not a QB.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Regarding manuals and their bearing on reality.

If I understand the Tigerfibel correctly, it states that the 1943 T34 could penetrate Tiger sides from 1,500 metres. So much for German manuals and their relationship to actual gun performance.

The Soviets have this charming manual on how to fight fascist tanks with the ATR. That is also full of interesting advice, the realism of which I would question.

I fully do agree however that Stug fronts are overmodelled against 85mm rounds.

What is your view on the Soviet report posted in the locked thread, about 76mm failing against 80mm plate at 200m?

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

The same (solitary) report which has been hashed to death a million times states that the PAK 40 firing German ammunition falls against the Tiger I side at 400m, and is clearly utter balderdash. Do you see anyone citing it to revise downward PAK 40 performance?

I have my own interpretation of why. They were lobbying for vehicles with improved guns. They did not want the admin and quartermaster types telling them to "make do" with the 76mm. They were trying to avoid the experience of US tankers having Patton types pretend existing equipment was adequate. The way to get better guns in the field rapidly was to make the existing ones look as poor as possible.

The German manual I am talking about is explaining why the StuH is not suitable for antitank work. It first says the low MV means the gun is innaccurate beyond 500m, and then says at under 500m the armor is inadequate against the Russian 76mm. They also tell StuGs to open at 800-1000m.

No cross check of model implications by tactical realities ensures a broken simulation. Nobody on earth had heard of the uberStuG before CMBB appeared. It is just a mistake. Even their own pricing shows it is a mistake. By formula, they think a StuG is no more capable overall than a T-34, which is clearly a hopeless estimate of their actual power in CMBB.

Mistakes happen, they go both ways - strafing is overmodeled and benefits IL-2s most etc. Bias appears mostly in resistence to acknowledging or fixing them, or doing anything about them through unit selection or scenario design practice - not typically in their original commission.

It is, incidentally, the last of those I recommend. Designers and players should be aware of the modeling errors or if you prefer, points of dispute, and avoid stressing the realism of the game by overuse of the most incorrectly modeled items.

In the specific case of German armor modeling and 76 vs. 80, that can be accomplished very simply and historically, by using predominately Marders and Panzer III longs in 1942 (StuG and Pz IV varieties with long 75 but 50mm front are also OK, to represent those rare vehicles), and Pz IVs in 1943.

The 20+50 plate on the front of the IIIs is generously modeled but entirely livable. Marders and 50mm front long 75s kill T-34s easily and shrug off 45mm fire from the front generously, but are killable by 76mm. Advanced Panzer IVs in 1943 have a superior gun and armor performance, vulnerable only at the turret while killing through all plates themselves, which is sufficienty realistic to leave tactics historical.

When players instead make it all a CMBB specific comic book by taking all StuGs in 1942, and StuGs when strapped for armor points and Tigers when not, in 1943, they simply force the Russians to reply in kind and ignore their own historical weapons mix. They must take T-34/57s not T-34/76s, SU-152s not any of the other SU varieties, towed 57mm not 76mm, and a Sturmovik at every battle in clear weather daylight. They are under absolutely no obligation to take historical weapon mixes when Germans do not, but cherry pick for modeling errors.

In 1944 anybody can take anything they like.

This is a simple solution which requires nothing from the designers. If German players or scenario designers acknowledge the points they can fight realistic Russian forces with realistic German ones. If they refuse to acknowledge the points, Russian players (and designers) can and should retaliate that intransigence in kind, and cherry pick themselves out the whazoo, without the slightest apology.

[Bigduke6]

Up to sometime in 1944, Soviet units of any experience level are treated the same as German units of the next lower experience level. This was a game design decision by the game designers. It's in the manual somewhere. I.e. if you buy Soviet regulars, they perform as Green, etc.pp.

This will affect your test results if both sides have ammo.

Ah, that untermensch account. Yeah, it has an effect on the infantry side, but on the armor side, at least in this case in my testing, nothing to write home about. Like I said, in the tests, the difference is the German round is performing appreciably better when it hits, rather than simply hitting a bit more often.

Non sequitur I am afraid. And contrary to the post by that Russian chap in the locked thread, where it states that in 1943, 76mm AP shattered at 200m against Tiger side armour. Most tanks at Kursk were not Tigers. Actual Tiger TWOs were quite low, AFAIK, so this would argue against the ability of the 76mm to do much serious damage. It would still be able to cause minor damage (equivalent to gun hits in CMBB) that render the Tiger hors de combat for the specific battle, or a few days. So I think you can not draw the conclusion from Kursk that the 76mm worked against Tiger side armour at 4-500m, especially when Soviet test reports say it did not. Stugs etc. could be defeated through the side armour.

I am not doing so. I didn't express myself clearly, my apologies.

If it was up to me, 76mm would defeat StuGs, reinforced PzIII, and the front hull of PzIV starting at about 400 meters, and definately at 250 meters.

I am well aware of that report on the Tiger I test, I have read it in the original and can provide the link with a bit of digging.

I have also read the Kubinka report on TigerII, and if any one wants that link let me know.

I am not asserting Soviet 76mm - well at least the 1943 version - should defeat vertical side plate on Tiger I. I am aware that Tiger I had a higher grade of armor, and the Soviet tests bear it out. At 200 meters, no penetration.

On the Tiger II, same deal. 76mm won't do the job, and the Tiger II test was conducted in late '44 early '45, i.e., when whatever 76mm rounds the Soviets had had all the kinks worked out of them.

There are plenty of criticisms the Soviets had of TigerII armor, BTW, it cracked easily. Lack of molybendum (spelling?) they said.

However, I am asserting that the game should distinguish more clearly between the 80mm on the side of the Tiger, and the pseudo-80mm on the front of a StuGIII or an improved PzIII.

I hope the above accomplishes that. I would however like to say that I agree with you on the matter of differential penetration between the German and the Soviet T34. They should have equal penetration, and neither of them should be able to get through Tiger side and Stug frontal armour at anything but very short ranges, with normal AP. Again, I feel the game undermodels the 76mm here, by making this point-blank, or indeed no penetration, when it should be 100-150m.

Well as noted I'm not so far off from that position, I would make the 76mm effective at about 200 meters and start having a chance at 400. So that's the distance we're apart, and considering the effect of randomizers (where's the seam, is there a hatch nearby, did the plate get hit there previously?) on whether a shell makes the margin or not, I'd say you and I practically agree.

I will say I think a StuG was unable to withstand getting pounded on the front minutes at a time at a reasonable combat range. If they were, I think it is an easy money bet StuGs would have been at the tip of every Panzerkiel operated by the Wehrmacht and Waffen S.S. combined, from the first fielding of the 80mm StuG until about March '44.

That kind of tactical advantage would not have escaped the German officer corps. Think of the advantage StuGs give in the game, and then ask yourself, would pros like the German officer corps have missed it? I think the idea is absurd; of course the German military would have recognized and exploited the bajeezus out of an tactical edge like that.

I think that that fact alone is so intuitive, and so incontrovertible, that I am astounded some people in these threads continue to argue super StuGs existed in the war. To do so shows an almost amazing lack of knowledge of the skill of the German army - something my respected colleague Andreas is far from guilty of, of course.

What really intrigues me, however, is how it worked out that the 76mm got undermodeled - at least in this particular case. I must agree with Jason here that the mechanics of the undermodeling seem obvious: for some reason, some one decided the shell when fired by Russians should handle high angle marginal engagements worse than when the shell was fired by Germans.

I am discounting a concerted effort by the designers to emasculate Russian weapons, but still, here is this underperforming 76mm. One wonders how it happened; oversight, an engine crunching not the right thing or maybe too many of the right things not weighted properly, a banal failure to check, or what?

It's just a perplexing mystery: the game does so much, so well, how did its designers get this basic thing wrong? Since the degree of the error is not huge, and really only obvious in marginal engagements where the 76mm is at the edge of its performance envelope, I suspect this was an issue that just never got picked up in playtesting.

Can you shed any light?

This would help me answer the question as to whether the 76mm is generally undermodeled, and of course perhaps help me lay to rest the Mother of All Conspiracies, the dreaded undermodeling of Soviet AP weapons across the board.

Mehr Licht! :cool:

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

The StuG spearhead notion isn't quite as crazy as you might think. The long defunct AFV-G2 magazine published operational histories for the StuG Brigaden detailing not just use as defensive hole pluggers but in attacks, one of which I recall went so deeply that it overran Russian artillery positions. I remember as a kid reading with awe how these units were fought down to cadres after upwards of 80% losses, shipped back to Germany for rebuilding, then sent back in. ISTR some did this three times, racking up enormous kill tallies in the process.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Mehr Licht? My guess is that it was probably never tested, since the assumption was that there would be no problem.

There were plenty of more important problems to deal with than the AP performance of exceedingly rare vehicles that were presumed to work the same as their non-captured brethren.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

However, I am asserting that the game should distinguish more clearly between the 80mm on the side of the Tiger, and the pseudo-80mm on the front of a StuGIII or an improved PzIII.

Another point regarding this - you have to distinguish between the 50+30 80mm armour plate on the improved models, and the one-piece 80mm armour plate on the later models. The former would probably not last very long under serious fire onto the frontal armour. It would crack and be shot away. CMBB does not model armour degradation over time, so this is a modeling problem that benefits the Germans.

The latter however should resist just like Tiger side-plate over time. I.e. it should be capable of absorbing numerous hits without failing, presuming that it was ordinary or better quality stuff. Later in the war is a different story. I think the stuff they lacked is called Molybdenum, but that may not have been the only thing missing.

I agree with Jason's notes on AFV selection, and I can only recommend that any scenario designer reading them implements them as well.

All the best

Andreas