Panzer IVH

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

You rarely hear allied tankers complaining about the Pz IV in '44 or '45, which makes me suspect that it was not something that they felt overly concerned about.

there's a reason why P-4's aer often misidentified as Tigers in CMBO - every tank as a Tiger or a Panther!!

There were plenty of complaints about the f2 in the desert, though.

That's 'cos there weren't any Tigers around then!!

[Tarquelne]

Yea, quibbling!

In general, though, I think that the Pz IV is pretty much right.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I think the PzIV is a little "undermodeled", but not much.

I should have expicitly said, btw, that I was not considering only game engine flaws but also the PzIV's disadvantages in WE, since that's where CMBO takes place. I didn't really want to claim the range-thing as anything - a flaw with the game or just an unfortunate condition. Either way the PzIV is weaker in CMBO's WE than it would be in say, the EF.

So:

I think that the engagement range for WE is about right

I agree that CMBO does a good job of portraying WE engagement ranges. (Except for the QBs.)

(The fact that it is hurt by overaccurate tanks firing on the move isn't a problem with the Pz IV's modeling, but is a game thing).

Ah, but it does make it "weaker" (a relative term) than it might deserve compared to a common opponent, and so I included it. Quibble back at'cha!

There are larger turrets than the Pz IV's, to be sure, but if CMBO treats a turret as 35% of a tank

I suspect that that the difference would be significant for hull-down situations, where the PzIV could really use some help. (Ditto for the mantlet.)

it looks like it extends 4" to the left of the gun (as you face the tank) and about 8-12" to the right, with the coax sticking through a hole in the right.

I think that'd be enough to consider it a "strong point" (as opposed to, for example, a Panther A's "weak point")... or at least 1/2 a strong point.

(The fact that it is hurt by overaccurate tanks firing on the move isn't a problem with the Pz IV's modeling, but is a game thing).

I'm thinking "gyro", and, as the strategic defender, I'd expect the German tanks to move a bit less.

Ummm.... I looked _really hard_ at the last couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything to disagree with. without sounding like a total idiot.

(I'm not trying to imply that Andrew H. was being anal, or nit-picky, or anything with a negative connotation, btw. I'm just waiting for some files to finish proccessing, and quibbling about Andrew's quibbles filled the time nicely.)

It'll be interesting to see what the PzIV point values are in CMBB compared to the Soviet Sherman.

[ August 15, 2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

I wouldn't disagree with that. I think the PzIV is a little "undermodeled", but not much.

I should have expicitly said, btw, that I was not considering only game engine flaws but also the PzIV's disadvantages in WE, since that's where CMBO takes place. I didn't really want to claim the range-thing as anything - a flaw with the game or just an unfortunate condition. Either way the PzIV is weaker in CMBO's WE than it would be in say, the EF.

I disagree. The main problem I see is the accuracy of the Pz IV vs its opponents (because gun accuracy in CMBO is based on Vo). Which means to me that in the open steppes of the eastern front the Pz IV would be even more at a disadvantage at the longer engagement ranges (with the old accuracy model) to a 37mm high-velocity gun.

remember the long-range Nashorn vs. Greyhound issue.

[[Wiking]]

I think it is kinda ironic that we get to barely even scratch the surface of CMBO one month before CMBB. We always discover somefink new and I think this speaks about the quality of the game.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by SS_Obergruppenführer:

I think it is kinda ironic that we get to barely even scratch the surface of CMBO one month before CMBB. We always discover somefink new and I think this speaks about the quality of the game.

This is a very old argument with some of the same names involved.

[TSword]

Redwolf,

Good observation about precision ! There should be a fixed prize increase for experience increase or a nearly fixed one (It was somewhat cheaper to train a Stuart crew, then a Panther crew).

However i have a problem acknowledging that the Gun's precision becomes improved with smaller calibres, at the contrary a small gun will loose precision much much faster with range then a big one. 3.7 cm at 1000 m has around 4 times lower precision then an equal quality 7.5 cm (The round weighs only a fourth, but has only half the drag, meaning the round looses speed quicker and therefore aiming (crew experience) becomes more important. So with two similar experienced crews one can estimate that the one operating the bigger gun will hit more often a given target (bigger or equal the standard distribution pattern of course).

If one looks at the scratches on the La Gleize Kingtiger and others for instance it becomes clear that the guns at their operating range had minimal distribution (All shots are very near together) of course varying throughout different products, but distribution was quite far below the targets size at normal ranges 500 - 1000 m for a 75 mm gun. Same is underlined by the factory data available for guns like Kwk43 7,5 cm and 8.8.

Greets

Daniel

[Jack Carr]

Redwolf posts:

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

Optics not at all modeld in CMBO.

Hit probablities of moving shooter against standing target and vice versa plain broken, announced to be CMBB-corrected in a recent thread.

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

I'm glad to hear that this is the case. I know that luck in any given scenario is a factor but I have seen some things that I just shook my head and laughed.

Michael Dorosh posts:

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

Does CMBO really "limit engagement range", or does it simply accurately reflect the closed in terrain found in Western Europe?

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

Good point. I'm reading a book right now that many of you I'm sure would enjoy. "The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy". Available from RZM. It goes into pretty good detail about the units that were there, especially armor. First hand accounts of battles. If you read this book you get a better understanding of how tanks like Tiger and Panther got knocked around by Shermans and Cromwells. Alot of it had to do with the terrain. There were many engagements which took place at relatively close range. The book goes into detail about how certain German counter-attacks were broken up by ambushes with well placed tanks nd anti-tank guns.

Good book. It goes into detail on the physical number of tanks available to each German unit present in the Normandy area. Day by day first hand accounts. Great stuff. How many days till CMBB!!!!

[xerxes]

Cintheaux Totalize is a good scenario to try out the PzIV at longer ranges.

[Ben Galanti]

TSword,

I don't think that the 38mm is actually modeled as more accurate, since base accuracy is pretty much tied to muzzle velocity in CMBO. However, there are other issues involved in chances to hit.

First, Tanks in CM 'bracket' targets. Now, you won't see this in the distrubution of the misses, but follow on shots are more likely to hit. The 38mm, with it's higher rate of fire 'ramps up' more quickly, since it gets more shots in.

This high rate of fire also means that, even if the 38mm has a 33% chance of hitting per shot and the 75mm has a 50% chance, if the 38mm shoots twice for every one time the 75mm shoots, it's more likely to hit.

Also, as others have mentioned, it has been theroized that tanks on the move are bit over accurate (though, I haven't seen that in text, as someone else said in this thread), so a moving Stuart is hard to hit, but can hit more often then maybe it should, also giving it an advantage.

Finally, the optics issue which has been mentioned before, though as also has been mentioned, close ranges could cancel out the real differences there.

So while, the 75mm is 'more accurate' other issues seem to negate that in CM games.

Ben

[Tarquelne]

Quibble mode on, sir!

Either way the PzIV is weaker in CMBO's WE than it would be in say, the EF.[/qb]

I disagree. The main problem I see is the accuracy of the Pz IV vs its opponents (because gun accuracy in CMBO is based on Vo).

I mean "weaker in Combat Mission Beyond Overlord's Western Erurope than it would be in say, the real Eastern Front." That's why I specified "CMBO's" Western Europe, but not "CMBB's Eastern Front", and of course CMBO has no Eastern Front.

Work with me, people.

[ August 15, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Redwolf]

I didn't mean to say the guns are modeled as more precise when they are smaller, sorry if I have been misleading.

They are modeled after the muzzle velocity and that one is pretty good for small guns. All that would not be a problem, if the other problems - knockout propability on penetration of small round, shooting on the move, the weak Pz IV turret, slow turrets and no model of hull turn rate - came on top of it.

Or in other words: if you observe how much it costs to upgrade an gun or tank to a better hit probablity, and then look at the price of most of the small-gun stuff, then there is a mismatch.

Tom, I don't remember the exact context for the fire-on-move announcement, but it occurs to me it has been in one of the interviews that came out around the time we were bashing Waffelgrenadiere and intrusive copy protection.

[MikeyD]

It's like that old joke "I told my doctor it hurts when when I do this (raises his arm). The doctor replied "Then don't DO that!"

I suspect a lot of the 'problems' with various tanks is linked directly to the gamey way the user (and the AI) deploys them in CMBO. You can't drive every vehicle around the board like it's a Panther. Hell, you probably shouldn't drive a Panther around the board that way either!

[Gpig]

I'm playing with a passle of MkIV's in my current PBEM games and they are doing GREAT!!!

Mind you they are mostly facing cromwell's and Stuarts. In one of my games my 3 MkIV's have taken out 3 stuarts, 2 cromwells and 4 halftracks.

In another of my games, I'm now finding myself up against some churchills and I'm finding my confidence in the MkIV lacking a smidge.

Any recommendations on how to take on the churchills with a MkIV? It's a 3 on 3 battle.

Thanks,

Gpig

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Any recommendations on how to take on the churchills with a MkIV? It's a 3 on 3 battle.

There are think and thin variants of Churchills.

Obviously the thin variants are easier to handle, there is just one special itm: near 45 degress you cannot penetrate them with the 75mm L/48. If the opponent is very clever he can traverse right across your view.

The think variant is nasty and the biggest problem is the fast turret. If you try to flank it witha Panzer IV, then even the good mobility of the Mk IV is not sufficient to avoid the turret. They will most likely nail you and even if not you shoot at the thick turret front even after flanking. For the loss of one Mk IV you can try attacking from two sides simultaneously, but that is dangerous, too, since you will most likely drive into flanks covered by soemthing else, the Churchills are not fast enough to outrun their cover

Much better is running around the map and shoot up everything else he has. These tanks are not fast enough to prevent you from doing so. It really works. After you've done that, cause him to spend the HE on the Churchill for minimal cost on your side, e.g. with HMGs. Block the way to the flags with Panzerschrecks or Squads which might have Fausts, or just overrun them with AT-capable infantry.

Hammering their guns with 20mm FlaKs works great, too and the return fire costs him ammo.

[TSword]

Ben, redwolf

Ok,got it !

Ben, i agree fire on the move is a bit optimistic in CMBO including german tanks.

What i read about early gyro-stabs (and what the germans hoped out of them when installed but never did) was not more precise shooting on the move but instead to aim the gun while on the move, then stop, fire and move again. So it gives an advantage in time to acquire a target lock.

Greets

Daniel

[Grey Hunter]

I like the MKIV (i've just made a model that I almost lost, because it was on a sheet of newpaper and is in Winter Camo), but I was also upset to see Redfox badmouthing the Stug. The Stug battalions were morla booster for the german troops, to the point were the commanders were told to tell the infantry that they were only leaving to rearm and refuel, otherwise the infanty were known to rout. saying they got thier kills just by dint of numbers is a slur on the crews who made those kills, often agiast full tanks. I think you should appologise (in general of course).

(as you may guess, in QB's i'm never the Axis and without a Stug.)

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Much better is running around the map and shoot up everything else he has. These tanks are not fast enough to prevent you from doing so. It really works. After you've done that, cause him to spend the HE on the Churchill for minimal cost on your side, e.g. with HMGs. Block the way to the flags with Panzerschrecks or Squads which might have Fausts, or just overrun them with AT-capable infantry.

Hammering their guns with 20mm FlaKs works great, too and the return fire costs him ammo.

This is absolutely right. I think that the most common outcome of a 3 on 3 fight between Pz IVs and Churchills (the thick ones) is 3 dead Pz IVs and no dead Churchills. The next most common result is probably 1 dead Church. and 3 dead Pz IVs. Pz IVs don't have good flanking ability, and if the Church. player uses his tanks reasonably well, three churchills will spin their fast turrets around and all fire at your flanking tank.

But Churchills are really really slow; it's hard to imagine how slow they are unless you've actually played them. So redwolf's plan of staying out of their LOS and shooting up other targets is probably the best thing you can do.

I hope your map is large.

[Gpig]

Hmmm. Thanks for the replies.

I shall endeavor to stay out of LOS. There are plenty of other targets to shoot up. My only problem is that his churchills will soon be doing the same. Shooting up my "other" targets.

Gpig

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by TSword:

What i read about early gyro-stabs ... was not more precise shooting on the move but instead to aim the gun while on the move, then stop, fire and move again. So it gives an advantage in time to acquire a target lock.

Spot on!

And it holds true into the '70ies, with Cheftain and M60 tanks using even more advanced stabilisers. (As proven by the Brits, in 1973 IIRC, when they found out that the S-tank with it's fixed gun was just as good as the Cheftain in the "firing while moving" test.)

Only from Challenger, M1, Leopard 2 and on are the stabilisers good enough to allow accurate firing on the move.

Cheers

Olle

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by TSword:

Ben, redwolf

Ok,got it !

Ben, i agree fire on the move is a bit optimistic in CMBO including german tanks.

What i read about early gyro-stabs (and what the germans hoped out of them when installed but never did) was not more precise shooting on the move but instead to aim the gun while on the move, then stop, fire and move again. So it gives an advantage in time to acquire a target lock.

Greets

Daniel

Roger THAT!

and that is NOT how it is modeled in CMBO, Even the Hellcat and Greyhoud WITHOUT the gyro bonus are absolutely deadly on the fast move.

Want Gamey? Engage some Big German cats with a bunch of hellcat and Greyhound, never let them stay still or move at less than FAST speed, and have them aim and shoot while fast moving on the flanks, and you too will be amazed how well they can hit and KILL from the flanks on the fast move, (sure, you need to engage at close range (less than 500m for this tactic, but it works!)

-tom w

[K_Tiger]

Ben:

the 37mm gun isnt an autoshooter and also didnt tell us the small size of the gun a double rate of fire compared to a 75mm weapon. Not to mention on longer distances were aquiring the target with retargeting ect. is the most time consumpting thing.

First hand accounts from german mentioned, the "vanilla" shermans were unable to hit at distances over 1200 meters, i dont belive the stuarts would be any better.

In "real" no stuart commander would try to outshoot at this distances with a regular tank and if, he will lost every time. Even he hade a lucky day and hit....he need a point blank shoot to defeat even the turret....but the allied tankers werent trained to put her life to the faith of luck.

To reload and shooting r two pair of shoos...especialy on such long ranges. I could imagine, the crew who shoot at first and misses at first, could get really buisy....

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Grey Hunter:

I like the MKIV (i've just made a model that I almost lost, because it was on a sheet of newpaper and is in Winter Camo), but I was also upset to see Redfox badmouthing the Stug. The Stug battalions were morla booster for the german troops, to the point were the commanders were told to tell the infantry that they were only leaving to rearm and refuel, otherwise the infanty were known to rout. saying they got thier kills just by dint of numbers is a slur on the crews who made those kills, often agiast full tanks. I think you should appologise (in general of course).

(as you may guess, in QB's i'm never the Axis and without a Stug.)

I wasn't badmouthing the StuG, much less the crews, assuming that you mean me (you quote something else red).

I was badmouthing people who claim the StuG is the most effective or decisive AFV of WW2.

[Sir Uber General]

Ahh, the MkIV, it'll always have a warm place in my heart. One day during a QB I had my last piece of armour, a MKIV, come head to head with 2 105 shermans. The rest of my armour had been killed early by a nasty jabo. Both shermans scored hits from 300 meters on the lower hull. My return fire took out both of his pieces, and proceeded to maul the infantry they were accompanying, tipping the balance in my favour for the rest of the fight. I couldnt' believe my luck. I love the Pz4 now My opponent that day learned some new respect for the old workhorse.

[ August 16, 2002, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Sir Uber General ]

[Kuma of Finland]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Want Gamey? Engage some Big German cats with a bunch of hellcat and Greyhound, never let them stay still or move at less than FAST speed, and have them aim and shoot while fast moving on the flanks, and you too will be amazed how well they can hit and KILL from the flanks on the fast move.

I can tell yous that this tactic pays off. I've got experienced one hellish QB where I had 3 KT's, 1 JT and 2 StuG's and opponent hordes of Hellcats. His hordes simply run over my tanks which were way too slow to turn and shoot them. :eek:

Opponent used ground cover and smoke (though his smoke was in wrong place) to sneak up close and then rush. His tactics really paid off that time. If the map had been bigger I could have tried backing out from harms way.

/kuma

[Ben Galanti]

K_Tiger,

I was only talking about in the game, not real life. I don't know how much faster the 38mm shoots in the game, but it is noticable. I just used twice since it makes the math easier.

I suspect that a Pz IV will beat a Stuart at 1200m more often then not, even in CMBO as it is now. The thing is, most CM games don't have ranges near that much. At 250m, with a faster turret and higher rate of fire, a Stuart has pretty good chances in the game.

Would Stuarts have done this in real life? Probably not, but the game can't account for ahistorical usage by the player.

Ben