Finnish tank tactics against KVs & T-34s

[Noitavasara]

I need some advice here. Yesterday i made QB, fin - soviet meeting, winter 1943, 1500pts, armor both sides, Soviet 125% troops.

I had one platoon t-70s clearing a hill, on the opposite hill was one KV and one T-34. As we all know 45mm gun isn't too shabby against KVs and T-34s.

My mistake was that my tanks we're front of russian tanks and they we're on a hill, as soon as KV & T-34 saw my tank platoon, i commanded them to reverse back behind some trees for cover. They didn't make it, KV was abandoned after an while, it knocked out one of my tanks, T-34 took out the rest in less than two minutes.

I didn't have the time to try flanking them and my other troops we're too far away.

How should i use finnish armor against russian armor? Or should i just try to supress and button them with tanks and use tank hunters? It seems almost impossible to destroy KV/T-34 with 45mm guns.

Thanks already.

(EDIT: i didn't buy units by my self, made it quick that time)

[ December 04, 2006, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Noitavasara ]

[jBrereton]

Other than BT-42 tanks, which are used for infantry support, mainly, I'd wholely advise against using Finnish tanks in any role to be honest.

Stick with man-portable weapons - especially the Panzerschreck weapons (especially the 3-man '44' version) and try to be a bit stealthy with Jääkäri, or simply keep them in heavy cover, and use their grenade bundles to take out tanks.

That, combined with some of the heavier support gear, such as AT guns, will see off Soviet tanks in a much, much better way that your own tanks.

The only answer I could think of would be, ironically, using captured T-34 tanks to fight off enemy tank forces and other AFVs.

[ December 05, 2006, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: jBrereton ]

[Noitavasara]

Jääkäri. Umlaut with all A's is correct.

yep, they just have too little armor and crappy guns for larger tanks. Works well against infantry and wooden bunkers though.

Only bad thing is that fins do not get panzerschrecks in 1941 - 1943. I cna't remember exactly when they get schrecks but it was at the end of war.

Grenade bundles and molotovs have worjed nicely this far, in that specific scenario i had bad luck with those tanks, they were on a hill in a very open area. Good that i have the game saved, i think i'll try to use some other units to atract the tanks and then sneak to their flank with couple tank hunter teams.

Yea, AT guns work but in that scenario i don't have any. It's meeting engagement and i let the game do buying of my units.

Captured T-34s are good, but rare and cost alot.

I'll stick with the ATguns and tank hunters.

[jBrereton]

Good point, it'd be the second Finnish War ('44) in which they got 'Schrecks.

Tank hunters are indeed handy, and fairly realistic in this period - every company had, IIRC, 8 'bombers' - tank hunters with Kasapanos and molotovs, too.

And I'd be wary of trying to sneak up on them with THTs, due to them being an extremely important target for the TacAI. They'll get hammered in a single burst of MG fire, and if the enemy is using KV tanks, that threat is also there if you try to sneak up from behind, too.

[Noitavasara]

Yea, it was in the end of continuationwar. (One veteran told me they got the fausts/shrecks too late, he also told me that some soldiers we're little scared to use those, instructions were only in german and they had never used those before etc.

Some harrasing fire from other units(MG, ATgun/ATrifle etc.) while THT is flanking the tank, that works out quite well, at least when THT has some cover to get molotov/grenbundle ready.

BTW, i got some extremely good results in tank fight yesterday, QB(700ptsME), small map, foggy, me playing germans against soviets. Rus had something like ten tanks.(two KVs, at least four T-34s and those BT?? fast tanks)And i had only three STUG IIIs.(can't remember the exact model, that one with quite thick armor and machinegun) By keyholing, using shoot and scoot & waiting for opponents mistakes, i was able to KO all aprox. ten tanks in less than 15 minutes. And one of my Stugs didn't fire a single shot. I think i was kinda lucky, cos i'm quite newbie about tank tactics. But that fight turned out wery good.

[JasonC]

No, you aren't lucky, the StuG is just known to be ridiculously overmodeled and underpriced. In 1943, Russian 85mm bounce from them, and 76mm bounce down to point blank range when in real life they penetrated within 500m. Gamey, no skill involved, every newbie can do it, it is the designer's doing not yours. Also it is a mistake.

[Noitavasara]

Thank you JasonC, that was just what i wanted to hear.

And now, please, get back on topic.

[Inola]

Stugs can be killed in 43 with T-70s easy enough. It is better to have 5 T-70 than 2 T-34 in ME because they can harass well and also KO stug with fast flanking (I prefer crack quality from Guards Mech). And at least it is big surprise for opponent to see T-70s. Of course it works only in combined arms.

[ December 08, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Inola ]

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Inola:

Stugs can be killed in 43 with T-70s easy enough. It is better to have 5 T-70 than 2 T-34 in ME because they can harass well and also KO stug with fast flanking (I prefer crack quality from Guards Mech). And at least it is big surprise for opponent to see T-70s. Of course it works only in combined arms.

On the other hand, they get the crap kicked out of them by late PSW 222s. And if you can flank with a T-34, you'll get the same results even more dependably.

[Inola]

T-70s have front armor thick emough to stop 50 mm rounds (not tungsten of rourse). I prefer platoon of T-70s and one T-34 in 1200 (or 1500) pts ME rather than 4 T-34 in 1943 (summer) because opponent has points enough only for 1 good armor, and this armor is stug.

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Inola:

T-70s have front armor thick emough to stop 50 mm rounds (not tungsten of rourse).

Depends what 50mm gun, and where it hits. In the turret or the lower body, the T70 is in a lot of trouble.

It can take a few hits to its mid-level frontal armour before its internal armour gets weakened enough for real damage to occur.

I prefer platoon of T-70s and one T-34 in 1200 (or 1500) pts ME rather than 4 T-34 in 1943 (summer) because opponent has points enough only for 1 good armor, and this armor is stug.

Another reason to pick the T-34, then. The 45mm gun of a T-70 is poorly suited to anti-infantry work. The 76.2mm gun is a damned sight better in that respect, too.

Plus, if the enemy's taking Heavy MG42s, the T-70 is somewhat vulnerable at close range, if hit anywhere where it has little armour.

The T-34 is not. In fact, the Germans have little in the way of handheld personal AT weapons until '44, so it's basically safe when enemy armour is destroyed.

I'd much rather have four good tanks than five rubbish ones and a single good one.

[Inola]

For more HE I take 2-3 76.2mm regimental guns transported with M3 scoutcars. And 1-2 82mm mortars.

50mm gun is not the most widespread in 1943. Opponent is unlikly to take PAK38 at that time.

I just done tests (august 43): cost ratio of T-34/T-70 is 2.5. The same is number ratio (reversed).

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Inola:

For more HE I take 2-3 76.2mm regimental guns transported with M3 scoutcars. And 1-2 82mm mortars.

Which is a complete waste of points if you can get the same effect from your T-34s, leaving those points free for stuff like THTs and armoured cars.

50mm gun is not the most widespread in 1943. Opponent is unlikly to take PAK38 at that time.

It's sure as hell what I use as soon as I can. Even a 37mm is going to punch holes in a T-70. Your front, centre armour is fine. It's just that everything else is a bit crap, which leaves it horribly vulnerable.

I just done tests (august 43): cost ratio of T-34/T-70 is 2.5. The same is number ratio (reversed).

There are two things which mean that I'd still pick a T-34 at this time -

1) I play with variable rarity. T-70s are often more expensive that they're worth. T-34s in one form or another are always cheap. I don't really mind taking model '42s in 1943. Even a Cast Turret '41 is fair enough at this point.

2) T-70s are still crap. I know that Stalin said that quantity is a quality all of its own, but this is not one of those cases in which it's true.

A 45mm gun simply doesn't really cut it in 1943. It's too weak to really punch holes in Axis armour at this point. It was never good enough against troops.

A 76.2mm is still extremely useful at this time. It's powerful enough to have some remaining use against Axis vehicles, and it's good against troops - especially since the /76 tanks can use canister shot, which is immensely useful against infantry.

[Cuirassier]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Inola:

For more HE I take 2-3 76.2mm regimental guns transported with M3 scoutcars. And 1-2 82mm mortars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Which is a complete waste of points if you can get the same effect from your T-34s, leaving those points free for stuff like THTs and armoured cars."

I disagree. I think towed guns are the greatest bargains in the game. Personally, I prefer the 76.2mm longs, because they are dual role. But any towed gun that can chuck some HE is extremely valuable. I get much more use out of cheap HE chuckers than THT's and thin armored cars.

Also, the T-34 is obviously a better vehicle than the T-70. No debate needed. But I don't think that makes the T-70 a piece of crap. They still have decent frontal armor, and the 45mm is adequate when you get flank shots. They make for good scouts and decoy vehicles. They work very well when used with T-34's, beacause they can do the scouting work (hitting mines, getting shot by AT guns, etc), and also give his armor something to look at while you send your more valuable vehicles to get flank shots.

Just my thoughts.

[Inola]

Cuirassier!

Agree totally! If we calcolate (HE points)/(cost points) ratio it will be the best for 75mm inf. gun or regimental-it is proof of ther heigh "ulefullness".

I mean T-70 not to be better than T-34 which is obviously stupi thing to declare, but bigger number of T-70s are better stug killers.

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

I disagree. I think towed guns are the greatest bargains in the game. Personally, I prefer the 76.2mm longs, because they are dual role. But any towed gun that can chuck some HE is extremely valuable. I get much more use out of cheap HE chuckers than THT's and thin armored cars.

Fair enough, maybe it's just a matter of personal preference. Towed guns are indeed useful, but they're not particularly mobile. Fair enough, put them in scout cars, but then they've got to unlimber, and that's often a big problem in itself.

Having a tank with the same calibre gun makes this issue less of a problem - although I can definitely see where you're coming from, the mountain guns in particular are a massive bargain.

Also, the T-34 is obviously a better vehicle than the T-70. No debate needed. But I don't think that makes the T-70 a piece of crap. They still have decent frontal armor, and the 45mm is adequate when you get flank shots.

My real issue in this debate is the one of costs and how much the vehicles are actually worth.

All of the advantages (other than having a small silouette) point to the T-34, and they're often a lot cheaper, in relative terms, than a T-70, if one uses rarity.

And your good armour point is pretty dubious, as well, to be honest. It has one good location. The rest are crap.

If, for the price of 1.5 T-70s, one could get a T-34, then it makes a lot, lot more sense to get the T-34, no?

They make for good scouts and decoy vehicles.

Decoys, yes, scouts, not really. You want to scout with something that has some teeth, on the off chance that you meet any foes. In the real world, the T-70'd be the better scout, due to being amphibious, but in CMBB, it isn't, which reduces its usefulness.

They work very well when used with T-34's, beacause they can do the scouting work (hitting mines, getting shot by AT guns, etc)

A-ha! This is where our main difference lies.

I want something that can give back what it takes. A T-34 can do so. It can take a few hits, and genuinely give out some damage.

A T-70 is rather poorer in this respect. Yes, it'll roll over mines and get crippled instead of a T-34. This is quite useful.

On the other hand, whereas an immobilised T-70 is useless, having a poor gun, an immobilised T-34 can be useful in the same fashion as a towed long-76, albeit being easier to destroy due to being on a tank, which is full of volatile fuel and ammo.

and also give his armor something to look at while you send your more valuable vehicles to get flank shots.

Agreed in one respect - they do make rather fine distractions.

On the other hand, a T-34 very seldom needs a flank shot on an enemy vehicle, and when the Axis' heavier tanks arrive, so does the T-34/85.

At this point, flank shots are still more useful, but on the other hand, the tank-mounted 88mm guns of the Axis will blow a T-70 to pieces in a single shot almost every time, making them a rather poor distraction. In fact, distractions in general are a poorer idea, and simply battering such enemies to death is often more effective.

[Cuirassier]

"Fair enough, maybe it's just a matter of personal preference. Towed guns are indeed useful, but they're not particularly mobile. Fair enough, put them in scout cars, but then they've got to unlimber, and that's often a big problem in itself."

Agreed. They aren't mobile. When using them, you can't expect them to be. You need a heavy weapons plan. You need a covered route combed over by scouts first and ideal firing locations identified during the setup for your game. As long as you start moving them by turn 1 though, and have good, keyholed firing positions for them, they will likely deliver much of their HE and be as useful as an AFV.

"My real issue in this debate is the one of costs and how much the vehicles are actually worth. All of the advantages (other than having a small silouette) point to the T-34, and they're often a lot cheaper, in relative terms, than a T-70, if one uses rarity."

Generally I agree with this. The T-34 is cheap, can chuck HE, and deal with most tank threats. I just don't see the T-70 as being a bad vehicle. My point was, that in scenarios where you aren't allowed to select your force and are given T-70's, it is wise to know how to get the most out of them.

"And your good armour point is pretty dubious, as well, to be honest. It has one good location. The rest are crap."

Yes, it has only one strong area, and that location is frontally, which is most important. The T-34's armor is better, but the T-70's is stil sufficient. And when you think about the opposition, there difference in armor matter little. Obviously the 88mm L/56 will punch holes through either vehicle at any distance. So does the 75mm L/48. The 50mm L/60 is regularly bounced by the T-34 at any distance, unless very close and a turret hit. The T-70 performs not bad against this gun though too. At 500m the best the 50mm gets is partial penetrations, and above that it bounces shot regularly, if it hits the hull. So I think its frontal armor is sufficient for scouting, as it can't be killed reliably by 'silent' shooters.

"Decoys, yes, scouts, not really. You want to scout with something that has some teeth, on the off chance that you meet any foes. In the real world, the T-70'd be the better scout, due to being amphibious, but in CMBB, it isn't, which reduces its usefulness."

This depends on the situation. If you have limited armor, and can only afford to scout with one vehicle, then a T-70 is much better than a T-34. It is cheaper and less valuable, and can survive light AT. You must realize that when an AT gun or enemy vehicle not spotted yet reveals itself, it will kill your scout, be it a T-34 or T-70. Also, leading with a T-70 is a good idea if there are mines. I'd rather have a light tank immobilized instead of a heavier T-34. So wouldn't you rather have the less valuable tank die?

So I think the proper way to scout with armor is to lead with a T-70 supported by a platoon of T-34's, because they can respond to and outnumber most shooters within a minute.

"A-ha! This is where our main difference lies.

I want something that can give back what it takes. A T-34 can do so. It can take a few hits, and genuinely give out some damage."

A single T-34 stumbling upon a hidden PAK will give nothing back, unless you are strangely lucky. When a competent player reveals and AT gun, it means your tank is dead, be it a T-70 or T-34.

"On the other hand, a T-34 very seldom needs a flank shot on an enemy vehicle, and when the Axis' heavier tanks arrive, so does the T-34/85.

With this, I just simply disagree. In 1943, when the T-70 and T-34 are both common, the T-34 needs flank shots almost as badly as a T-70. The 76.2mm L/42 is undermodelled in the game. Because of that, it has seriously problems dealing with 80mm plates, even at point blank range. Thus, it needs flank shots on the Tiger (obviously), the Stug, preferably on the PZ IV, though the 50mm turret can be penetrated, and preferably on the PZ III too, because the 70mm armor is still quite tough to crack at range.

"At this point, flank shots are still more useful, but on the other hand, the tank-mounted 88mm guns of the Axis will blow a T-70 to pieces in a single shot almost every time, making them a rather poor distraction. In fact, distractions in general are a poorer idea, and simply battering such enemies to death is often more effective."

The 88mm will knock out any vehicle with a couple of rounds. Hail fire is an effective tactic, especially against the weaker armored PzIV and III, which can be penetrated frontally. Against Stugs and Tigers though, it is practically suicide. In these cases, distractions and flanking are nececessary, unless special weapons are available (eg. T-34/57, Su-152)

[John Kettler]

Finnish Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck manuals.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=459

Part of my contributions to this thread.

http://www.fewgoodmen.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1131

Regards,

John Kettler