Tigers? Bah...Panthers? Dont need 'em...We have the StuGIIIF!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

What it all comes down to is the armour on the 42 and 43 StugIII.

By mid 42 the StugIIIs went over to 80mm; face hardened armour over the front of the vehicle. The standard Soviet 76.2mm APBC round could not penetrate this armour. This is where the power of the StugIIIs in 43 comes from. Over time two things changed.

One, in September 43 the Soviet 76.2mm guns start to get tungsten rounds. These can penetrate the front of StugIIIs at up to 700m. Secondly, armour quality on the StugIII declines during 44. The LateMid, and particularly the Late StugIIIs are vulnerable to even the standard APBC 76.2mm round of 44, up to 500m-700m.

There is a point worth mentioning. It was Soviet SOP to call off attacks once it was discovered they were up against Uber tanks relative to their own equipment on a given day. This SOP came into effect very early as a result of experience against StugIIIs with 80mm armour and then continued throughout the rest of the war. The Soviet were only too aware that attacking German AFVs who’s front armour they could not penetrate, was pointless. I agree 100% with Mattias on this.

It is also worth stressing, as others already have, that the only Uber tanks that were available in any quantity that mattered, StugIIIs in their day, and then Panthers later, have very thin side armour. Use either StugIIIs or Panthers in attack over the more open terrain of the east, apart from in towns there was not the same “man-made micro-landscapes” as in the west, and the result can be grizzly for the Uber tanks. Also, the Soviets tended to have far larger numbers of AT guns, relative to the number of attacking Panzers, than was the case in the west.

All the best,

Kip.

[Rickovich]

Well this whole thread is really based on a perfect world scenario.If I'm sitting in defense with good fields of view and a foolish russian commander thinks he's doing a tank rush ala CnC.Then yea bad news for russian.I've killed tigers and panthers(not to mention stugs)on the offensive with T34's.Infantry spanks stugs as well.So in my opinion it's not a perfect weapon system.But on defense in an intergrated defense belt very effective.I think the points are fine since so freaking many were produced.Just my 2 shots worth...

[Nippy]

"The biggest advantage over a conventional tank was the low, squat, shape. A good driver could tank advantage of the low silhouette against the skyline and use the countryside....to minimize the risk of being a target" Max Flemming

Not to Hijack the thread, but the above is the exact reason I love the little Hetzer so much. Good front armor, powerful main gun, and I beleive the lowest siloute rating (65 IIRC) in the game.

[Hannibal]

I just took out two of the super stug III with two kv-2s in a quick battle . Would have thought I would have had more problems with them .

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Nippy:

Oh the things I do for you people. I just finished up using the Mission editor to test out the STUG(s) in Question:

Round 1: STUG-F & STUG-F8 vs five 57mm AT guns at 500m.

Result: Both knocked out in a single turn.

Round 2: STUG-F & STUG-F8 vs 5 57mm AT guns at 1000m.

Result: STUG-F knocked out. STUG-F8 had a single penatration at a weak point and one track damaged. No fatal hits though.

Round 1: STUGIII-F & STUG-F8 vs 5 76.2mm AT guns at 500m.

Result: STUG-F knocked out & STUG-F8 was mangled to hell (no tracks or gun) but was never knocked out.

Round 2: STUGIII-F & STUG-F8 vs 5 76.2mm AT guns at 1000m.

Result: STUG-F knocked out & STUG-F8 lost main gun but suffered no penatrating hits.

Conclusion: On offence us 57mm Equipted T-34's and on defence us 57mm AT guns.

That sounds like good news for the Soviets :confused:

Did you mean to say:

"On offence us 76.2mm Equipted T-34's" ??

GREAT test results

thanks

I guess that means those StuG's are not indestructible??

-tom w

[ October 06, 2002, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Nippy]

Did you mean to say:

"On offence us 76.2mm Equipted T-34's" ??

Nope, 57mm equiped is the way to go. the 57mm gun has much higher penatration values that the 76.2mm gun. Check it out in the mission editor. Just select June-42 and put in any T-34/76 and a T-34/57 and compare the penatration tables.

[rune]

Some background information:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm

Enjoy....especially the aces section.

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Nippy:

Did you mean to say:

"On offence us 76.2mm Equipted T-34's" ??

Nope, 57mm equiped is the way to go. the 57mm gun has much higher penatration values that the 76.2mm gun. Check it out in the mission editor. Just select June-42 and put in any T-34/76 and a T-34/57 and compare the penatration tables.

Oh :eek:

OK

sorry I was mistaken

since I don't have the game yet (grr..) I just thought you meant the 76.2 mm T34 was the one to have since I figured it had better penetration values. Sorry my mistake, thanks for the clarification.

-tom w

[Talenn]

aka_tom_w:

I wouldnt get your hopes up on those T34/57s...I mentioned 'realistically available' as one of the parameters to fight the StuGs and ~200% rarity doesnt cut it there! So far, nothing on the reasonably common list has been effectve beyond ~100m.

Also, note that the StuGIIIF/8 was not killed in Nippy's tests. The REGULAR StuGIIIF (which was killed in his tests) has only 50 armor. Once the late model hits (around fall of 42), the 80 armor is practically invulnerable to all 'standard' Russian guns until the 85mm (Tungsten notwithstanding...but dont count on having much/any).

kipanderson:

Very nice summary. You mentioned that the Soviets tended to have more AT guns (tank guns included, I would wager) in ratio to the German 'uber tanks' and I would be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, given the costs in the game, this will not occur. I think that is the real issue at this point...continued below.

Bastables:

Yes, and the turreted vehicles should have very real advantages, but in a game where the player has near total control and Borg Spotting is present, the limits of the turretless vehicles are far less critical.

All:

Ok, so by now, we've established that the StuGs really were practically unkillable to the front. Now that that is settled, the real question is whether it is 'costly' enough in the game to reflect that.

Kipanderson mentioned that the 'uber tanks' were usually outnumbered by the Soviets. That seems like a sound way to overwhelm them and its one of the ways the Allies dealt with the uber tanks in CMBO as well. But unfortunately, with the StuGs being so cheap (pointwise), this is seldom going to be the case. At best you are looking at parity and that is a losing proposition in most battles.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in 'competitive' play. If I had to guess, there is going to be a fair amount of 'StuG Abuse' going on in QBs set between Fall of 42 and mid-44. I just dont see people paying MORE points for a PzIII/IV when the StuG is so much more survivable.

I guess we are in 'wait and see' mode for a while on that one though.

Thanx again for all of the info.

Talenn

[Nippy]

"I wouldnt get your hopes up on those T34/57s...I mentioned 'realistically available' as one of the parameters to fight the StuGs and ~200% rarity doesnt cut it there! So far, nothing on the reasonably common list has been effectve beyond ~100m."

Oh boy, I just went back and checked in the game. For the first half of 1943 there is a "Dead Zone" where the T-34/57 has been taken out of service and then is re-intoduced near the end of the year. The only thing 'realistically available' that will really knock them dead are the SU-122 and the SU-152...and accuracy isn't exactly their strong point.

[Talenn]

After some more testing, there is another factor at work here...

When you finally DO have T34s/SU-76s close enough to actually kill a StuG frontally, they spend more time reversing and running than shooting. This makes no sense to me...

They will happily shoot it out at 500m where they are dying in one shot almost 90% of the time and they can do nothing unless they hit the gun. But get them into range where their weapons can almost penetrate, and they run like schoolgirls.

Also, when is Tungsten 'available'? Sure, by 10/43 it seems that 1 in 3 or so has A (single) Tungsten round or maybe you are very lucky and carry two, but with the new damage model, that rarely kills a StuG even IF you manage to hit with it. So, when is Tungsten available in any quantites likely to influence the battle?

Finally, I'm going to lean on this a little...it still seems to me that (absent 46347 facts and quotes and armor stats) that the StuGs survivability (or the 76.2s penetration) is a little 'off'. At ~220m and the chance to kill is NONE, I just think that something might be a bit too much in the StuG's favor.

As I mentioned above, its just extremely strange that no previous tactical game I've played has ever modeled this like this (ASL, TANKS!, Steel Panthers, Eastern Front, Panzer!?--Yaquinto game, amongst others). I suppose that its possible that they are all wrong and CMBB is right, but that seems less likely than the alternative. I'm not bashing CMBB, BFC, or their modeling, but is it possible that there is room for error in some of the calculations? NO chance of a kill at 220m?

I guess after having just run about 50 test against various Soviet vehicles from ranges of 120m to 700m in 10/43 vs 4 StuGIIIG (mid) and never once coming close to seeing the Soviets winning the engagement despite having more points in the field, I'm a little skeptical.

Has anyone found ANYTHING that is realisitic that can kill the StuGs?

[WWB]

You still miss the major weaknesses of the Stugs, aside from the lack of turret which a human player can easily use against you.

1) No MG, or MG with very limited ammo. They have issues with infantry close defense.

2) Low ammo load. This is really exacberated by CMBB's death clock. With 23 or so AP shots, a stug can really only engage 4 targets before it runs out of ammo, given misses and treble hits due to death clock.

While they are powerful, especially if properly supported, they are far from uberweapons.

WWB

[Treeburst155]

The UberStuG!!!

We will see a lot of this unit unless one or more adjustments are made. Other uberunits will most likely be discovered too. There will always be a few "best bang for the buck" units. Hit 'em on the flanks, I say!! Hit 'em on the flanks! If that doesn't work, call your opponent a "gamey bastiche", and be sure to purchase many StuGs for your next battle.

Treeburst155 out.

[Redwolf]

Hey, guys,

please take the kill statistics of the StuG with caution.

They simply had a very target-rich environment. They were hanging out

where Soviet tanks would struck, in very big numbers late in the war.

It is not an indication of vehicle quality to get many kills this way.

The real tanks in turn should strike where the enemy is weak, not

where his tank battalions hang out. In addition, they were comparablity more ective at the Western front, running into American infantry lines if at all attacking.

None of these is suitable to conclude that the vehicle construction as such had a big impact, except of course that a StuG sucks on the attack. It must stop to shoot anywhere but to a very narrow angle in front. Exploiting any success becomes extremly difficult.

[Talenn]

wwb_99:

I'll definately grant you that lack of MGs is an issue, but the ability to 'only' engage about 4 targets is not a problem IMO. Given that they are the same price or cheaper than their primary opponents, there arent going to BE 4 targets for every StuG. If the Russians Attack and field 3-6 T34s (assuming a modest point engagement), the Germans can field at least 3 StuGs. 3x4=12...or more than double the number present, even accounting for double and triple kills.

Treeburst155:

Thats kind of what I'm afraid of. I've already played 3 QBs vs random folks and in all three, the primary German vehicle was the StuG. Its going to become tiresome very quickly running up against them every time I attack. You'd think the German army didnt use PzIIIs or something...

redwolf:

On an operational or grand tactical level, exploitation is an issue that StuGs might have trouble with. In a lower lever tactical game, its not a really big deal. Personally, I'd like to see more disdavantages for turret-less AFVs, but I just dont see much of a problem with them in CMBB except in knife fights which are less common than in CMBO.

Are there any Tournaments coming up for CMBB? If there is a loophole here to expoit, that would be one of the quickest ways to find it!

Talenn

[zukkov]

isn't it ironic that once the germans began to deploy superior tanks, they started losing the war? why? there are many reasons, none of which are brought out on the battlefield. or are they? in a strictly tactical situation where players "purchase" their units as if in a store, the superior weapons really make the difference(all else being equal). i said this 20+ years ago, when i used to play table top micro armor battles with friends, and having little or no success against the german panthers/tigers, which always seemed to dominate our games. it is very difficult to simulate ww2 in tacticle terms alone, because if you just look at the battles fought, you'd swear the germans won easily!

having said that, i love cmbo/bb more than any other wargames i've ever played. finally there's a tactical level game that shows the real horrors of battle, or as close as you can get in a game. and it makes the player's tactics more important than the equipment. not that equipment isn't important. the discussion here shows just how important it can be to have the superior weapon. but all weapons can be defeated, and cm proves that more than any other game i've seen. i've knocked out KT's with bazooka teams and sherman 75s, so i know that stugs must be defeatable by something from somewhere. you just have to found out what the something and the somewhere is. lol...

[Redwolf]

In WW2, the side with the better tanks always lost.

France 1940

Russo/German 1941-1942

Once the Tiger arrives in North Africa the Axis gets waxed

Russo/German 1944-1945

ETO 1944-1945

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Talenn:

Thats kind of what I'm afraid of. I've already played 3 QBs vs random folks and in all three, the primary German vehicle was the StuG. Its going to become tiresome very quickly running up against them every time I attack. You'd think the German army didnt use PzIIIs or something...

In one of my human-chosen quickbattles I ran into serious trouble with two Pz IIIN.

I still think you are focusing on the armor battle too much. In that game I could never harm the Pz IIIs, and they waxed three of my five BT-7, every duel was instand death for me even when putting four against 1 at the same time. All this didn't change one bit about the fact that I decimated everything else and the opponent Alt-A'ed me when the Pz IIINs ran out of ammo.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by redwolf:

In WW2, the side with the better tanks always lost.

A Statement based on correlation not causative variables.

[Treeburst155]

For QB competitions (ladders) there will soon be new rules and "talking points" regarding various units in various time periods. Those wishing to avoid the "late '42-'43 StuG issue, will negotiate games set in other time periods. Of course, each of these time periods may present their own inequities.

Treeburst155 out.

[Rickovich]

As I said earlier stugs in a perfect world scenario.Ever timed one trying to turn to hit that t34 that just flanked it.Very very slow.T34 gets off 3-4 shots into side rear before it can even point it's gun at em.Buh bye stuggies.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Rickovich:

As I said earlier stugs in a perfect world scenario.Ever timed one trying to turn to hit that t34 that just flanked it.Very very slow.T34 gets off 3-4 shots into side rear before it can even point it's gun at em.Buh bye stuggies.

Reflected in the undue care and worry when T 34 formations found out StuGs were facing them?

Flank shots will kill almost anything, the fact is that T-34s in 42,43 are forced to flank them.

[Rickovich]

Any russian commander who get's worried only after hearing stugs in the area isnt too good in the first place.Caution has to be the watch word and flanking is just good armor tactics regardless of whats involved.Be worried,be cautious,be victorious.(Btw I wasnt discussing history or Russky leadership or lack thereof.)Just pointing out the flaws that can be exploited in any turrentless afv.K'I'm done here.Just my 2 shots

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Talenn:

As I mentioned above, its just extremely strange that no previous tactical game I've played has ever modeled this like this (ASL, TANKS!, Steel Panthers, Eastern Front, Panzer!?--Yaquinto game, amongst others). I suppose that its possible that they are all wrong and CMBB is right, but that seems less likely than the alternative.

Actually, they probably are wrong... much as they were wrong in modeling the Sherman as a piece of s**t. The accounts I have read of the east Front put the StuGs down as one of the most effective weapons the Germans had. The StuGs (part of artillery) had a much higher per vehicle kill ratio than the Panzers. Admittedly, this may have been largely due to the higher standard of training in StuGs over the Panzers and the fact that it was an all volunteer force until mid to late 1944

[Subvet]

The 75mm Sherman can take them out at decent range. If I'm not mistaken the Sherman is available Sept. '42.