Panzer IVH

[Marlow]

Since I am often on the Stuart end of M IV - Stuart fight, I must say that I am surprized that you all are bad mouthing the M IV. From my experience, going head to head with a M IV is almost always a bad idea. If you are losing to Stuarts in a strait up fight, you are doing something wrong.

I did a quick test to confirm my experience. I used 1000 points of each tank (10 Stuarts v. 8 M IVs), at a variaty of ranges, 5 trials each.

At 250, the Stuarts lost 50 to 17

At 400, the Stuarts lost 50 to 15

At 800, the Stuarts lost 50 to 6

At 1500, the Stuarts lost 50 to 4

Not good odds.

Also, the CMBO ROF for a Reg Stuart is about 10 rounds a min., and the ROF for a reg M IV is 7 rounds a min.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Since I am often on the Stuart end of M IV - Stuart fight, I must say that I am surprized that you all are bad mouthing the M IV. From my experience, going head to head with a M IV is almost always a bad idea. If you are losing to Stuarts in a strait up fight, you are doing something wrong.

[snip]

Also, the CMBO ROF for a Reg Stuart is about 10 rounds a min., and the ROF for a reg M IV is 7 rounds a min.

But you almost never fight a 'straight up' fight. Certainly if you are trying to fight a 'straight up' fight with Stuarts against M IVs, you are doing something wrong.

My biggest successes with Stuarts have been when I force my opponent to reveal his AFVs to fire on my infantry. Then, if I do things right I can use the superior speed, turret speed, ROF and accuracy of the 37mm gun to get a many on one engagement with the Axis tanks.

While it's true that the 37mm's ROF is not twice as fast as the 75mm's, the combination of the fast turret, gyro and somewhat higher ROF means that in my experience you can usually get 2 shots at a Pz IV with a Stuart before it gets one back, and the third off before the PzIV fires it's second. By the time 4 shots have been fired (3 by the Stuart and one by the PzIV), usually at least one of the AFVs is KOed, and in my experience more often than not it's the PzIV unless the engagement is head-to-head at at least medium range.

I guess the above is just good tactics and not necessarily a real advantage of the Stuart over the PzIV, though. My mantra for combined arms fights "get your opponent to reveal his armor first". In my experience, If you achieve this without taking undue losses, you're well on your way to winning whether you're playing Stuarts vs. Pz IVs, or Shermans vs. PzIVs or whatever.

It just seems that Stuarts are particularly good at dealing with middling quality German armor (Pz IVs & sometimes StuGs) once you win the infantry maneuver fight. IMHO, their high speed, smaller size and lower ground pressure make them more useful in many situations than plain vanilla Shermans for the anti-armor fight. The Stuart's anti-infantry (or anti-ATG) capabilities are another matter entirely - this is where the Sherman really shines and arguably why they're a better purchase than Stuarts for most battles.

It will be interesting to see how the Stuart's anti-infantry capabilities change in CMBB, as it was one of the more common lend-lease vehicles. The Stuart's 3 MGs and large MG ammo load combined with the new MG modeling may make it very useful as a sort of highly mobile MG nest. The new "Shoot and Scoot" command is also likely to make the Stuart (and indeed, most light tanks) a royal pain in the @ss for the heavies to deal with without support from lighter, faster guns (or skillful use of the "Cover Armor Arc" command!).

Cheers,

YD

[Marlow]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I guess the above is just good tactics and not necessarily a real advantage of the Stuart over the PzIV, though. My mantra for combined arms fights "get your opponent to reveal his armor first". In my experience, If you achieve this without taking undue losses, you're well on your way to winning whether you're playing Stuarts vs. Pz IVs, or Shermans vs. PzIVs or whatever.

I agree with this 100%. When I do play the Axis, I find that M IVs do very well if I use them carefully (use covered routes, work in pairs, lead with infantry, etc...). I tend to believe that the people who have the most trouble using German medium armor are the ones who get too used to using AFVs with thick frontal armor (Panthers, Hetzers, etc...).

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

It will be interesting to see how the Stuart's anti-infantry capabilities change in CMBB, as it was one of the more common lend-lease vehicles. The Stuart's 3 MGs and large MG ammo load combined with the new MG modeling may make it very useful as a sort of highly mobile MG nest.

I hope so. Everything I have read suggests that the tank's MGs were its real infantry killer. The current modeling sells short one real advantage that U.S. tanks had: lots of MGs with bunched of ammo.

[xerxes]

At longer ranges the stuart has trouble penetrating even the thin PzIV turret armor. But in general the German tanks work very well at long range, the allied tanks need shorter ranges for maximum effectiveness.

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

It will be interesting to see how the Stuart's anti-infantry capabilities change in CMBB, as it was one of the more common lend-lease vehicles. The Stuart's 3 MGs and large MG ammo load combined with the new MG modeling may make it very useful as a sort of highly mobile MG nest. The new "Shoot and Scoot" command is also likely to make the Stuart (and indeed, most light tanks) a royal pain in the @ss for the heavies to deal with without support from lighter, faster guns (or skillful use of the "Cover Armor Arc" command!).

I'm not so excited about the Stuart in the Eastern front. It still is the EASTern front, and I have more than enough confidence in the Soviets that they're not awfully dependent on some crappy Stuarts at killing the Germans' inf. The Stuart is not a tank that I'd use to support my inf should there be any German tanks around. Yes, the MG modelling will be more realistic in CMBB, but it doesn't concern just the Stuart, other vehicles benefit aswell.

This is what the Soviets thought about the Western lend-leased tanks :

"...the tanks they were receiving from Britain were of types already outclassed by the Germans, and, more-over, ill-suited for the most part to the harsh Russian environment. These tanks were employed for the want of anything better, but not, it seems, with much enthusiam." From Tank vs tank, by Kenneth Macksey.

The quote is before the Stuart entered service in the SU, but still I think that comment also applies to it. Also, in the more open conditions in the east, you're going to need good armour to shrug off the hits from those high-velocity 50/L60's and 75/L48's from PzKw III's and IV's respectively.

The Stuart's gun isn't suited for inf support for the low effect of that 37 mm HE. Any inf man will be more impressed by a near miss from the 76,2 mm gun in KV-1 than a 37mm one !

Another quote from the same book :

" The reliable Stuart was use d as a stop-gap tank when introduced to the North African desert in -41, but was unfit for stand-up fighting in -42 ( !!! ) and soon relegated to reconnaissance work. Its high speed was of no great protection. "

Such was the Stu in real life. BTS, please fix or do somefink !

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

What is wrong with the current game modeling of the Stuart? Please be specific. Do not include players using the tank in ways that would have made the real tank crews wet theit pants (i.e. hunt for flank shots on Panthers). Except in rare cases, Stuart crews would have bugged out when the German heavies showed up. This is the fault of the player, and not the game modeling.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

IIRC, the Soviets liked both the Stuart (which they deemed equivalent to their T70 light tank) and the Sherman. It was the Grant that they had little use for.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Marlow:

What is wrong with the current game modeling of the Stuart?

The MGs don't do crap compared to real life.

The vehicle is slightly more effective in CMBO than in real life because it can turn on the spot in CMBO, which IIRC it can't in real life.

Overall the Stuart is one of the better fits with reality in CMBO. And as I said very early in this thread, the Stuart is expensive enough.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

The Stuart's gun isn't suited for inf support for the low effect of that 37 mm HE. Any inf man will be more impressed by a near miss from the 76,2 mm gun in KV-1 than a 37mm one !

!

Not modeled well in CMBO, but the MGs were the tanks real infantry killer. The Stu had three, including the 50 cal.

Oh, almost forgot. Though not modeled in CM, the Stuart's 37mm had an available canister round, which the USMC used to good effect in the Pacific war. I'm not sure how widely this round was used in Europe or Russia, but I do recall at least a few stories about its use on the Western front.

[ August 16, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The MGs don't do crap compared to real life.

The vehicle is slightly more effective in CMBO than in real life because it can turn on the spot in CMBO, which IIRC it can't in real life.

Overall the Stuart is one of the better fits with reality in CMBO. And as I said very early in this thread, the Stuart is expensive enough.

I agree that the MGs are undermodeled, but Prinz Eugan seemed to imply that the tank was overmodeled. As far as neutral steering goes, I know that the Sherman couldn't, but I have never read one way or the other for the Stuart. Do you have any solid information on this, or is it based on the Sherman?

[Prinz Eugen]

About the modeling, there HAS to be something wrong with it. If a Stuart, a tank that, as I quoted, was withdrawn from use as a MBT as early as 1942 has a fair chance of defeating PzKw IV in BO, then something must be wrong.

Also, the IV wasn't in WW II as poor a tank as you'd suspect from experiences in CM BO. After the upgunning of that tank from short 75/L24 in late-41 or so into 75/L43 - and later into the more effective L48 piece, the IV became the most effective AFV when it came to fighting other tanks, up until the arrival of the Tiger and Panther.

And after that occasion it didn't wither into nonexistence; I think it was the most common of the panzers and was used into the end of WW II. Now, this wouldn't happen if a puny Stuart proved a match to it, eh ? In the east the IV infact did rather well. Only after the arrival of the T-34/85 ( summer -43 ) the Soviets would possess a tank that matched the IVF.

Now that you think of it; IRL the IV F gave T-34s, some formidable AFVs a spanking. In CM, the same IV is vulnerable to a Stuart, a little reconnaissance tank.

After this, tell me that there isn't fixing to do ( or somefink ) on the part of BTS !

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

About the modeling, there HAS to be something wrong with it. If a Stuart, a tank that, as I quoted, was withdrawn from use as a MBT as early as 1942 has a fair chance of defeating PzKw IV in BO, then something must be wrong.

:confused:

try a test on head to head fighting between a M IV and a Stuart. The M IV will win most of the time. Also, the reason that the M IV gave the T34 fits was because of its gun and accuracy, not because of its armor. The 75/48 can defeat most allied tanks and is way overkill in taking on the Stuart. Before you tell BTS to fix somefink, please give specifics about what is wrong with the modeling.

[ August 16, 2002, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Prinz Eugen]

And I'm basing my views on the book

Tank versus Tank : The illustrated story of armoured battlefield conflict in the twentieth century by Kenneth Macksey,

and not "I-think-this-is-the-truth" on the experiences I've had when playing CM. A Stuart is not an combat-worthy AFV, not in the least bit as was the Panzer IV.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

and not "I-think-this-is-the-truth" on the experiences I've had when playing CM. A Stuart is not an combat-worthy AFV, not in the least bit as was the Panzer IV.

and it isn't in CM either. Again, tell me why the "real life" Stuart is so much worse than the CM Stuart. Specifics, not just "it can take on the Panzer IV" (which in cannot do reliably anyway).

[ August 16, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I agree with Marlow's takes on this.

In CMBB you won't be able to get light AFV's to go roaring closer to heavier AFV's, albeit in a flanking manuever, with a lot of consistency, because crew morale is modeled (Yay!) and that light AFV may just decide the motor sounds funny and they really need to get to a rear area maintenance depot about the time you order them into LOS of something nasty.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

About the modeling, there HAS to be something wrong with it.

Yes, and that is...

If a Stuart, a tank that, as I quoted, was withdrawn from use as a MBT as early as 1942 [...]

... that is has never been a MBT, it was a light tank all along.

I notice you quote from tank vs. tank. It's a fine book, but obviously not about AFVs which have not been designed to do tank vs. tank fighting in the first place

has a fair chance of defeating PzKw IV in BO, then something must be wrong.

The wrong thing is the inappropriate chance to hit the thin armor on the turret front, because of non-modeling of the fact that the turret is small and non-modeling of the mantlet.

Who started that nonsense about Stuart overmodeling, anyway? All we have is the need for another exception in the CM code like the "C" or "+" modifiers on other tank's front armor, and deal, silence, finito.

[ August 16, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

Now that you think of it; IRL the IV F gave T-34s, some formidable AFVs a spanking. In CM, the same IV is vulnerable to a Stuart, a little reconnaissance tank.

After this, tell me that there isn't fixing to do ( or somefink ) on the part of BTS !

Ahem, now that I come to think of it it's not the Stu that is overmodeled, it's more likely the Panzer IV that is undermodeled...Well, I've had my own share of Stuart-IV engagements leading to my Panzers taking penetrations. That just pisses me off !

In BB that will be rectified in part of the gun optics; a fine 75mm cannon used in the IV will knock out smaller tanks ( usually ) before they get in range. Also the armour needs to be strentghened; after all the IV was a formidable adversary to the T-34 with its 76,2 mm gun.

My opinion in the end; forget what I said about the Stuart. And, yes, the Panzer IV is UNDERmodeled in CM BO.

(edited because of the tired state I'm in )

[ August 16, 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Prinz Eugen ]

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I notice you quote from tank vs. tank. It's a fine book, but obviously not about AFVs which have not been designed to do tank vs. tank fighting in the first place

Sligthly offtopic ; wasn't AFV synonym to tank ?

:confused: ( Honestly, I don't know )

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

Two points here. First, the Mark IV already does have a considerable advantage over many allied tanks at long range. Do a test yourself. I did several at 1500m and the Mark IV came through with flying colors. In the first, I took 1000 points on Mark Ivs (8)against 1000 points of Stuarts (10), and let them at it. The results after 5 runs was 50 dead Stuarts and 4 dead Mark Ivs. I then ran the test with 1000 points of M4 Shermans (8 tanks). The results after 5 runs was 40 dead Shermans and 3 dead Mark IVs. This isn't good enough for you?

With respect to Mark IV and the T34, the big advantage that the Mark IV will have is the gun, and not armor. The T34 was better armored than the Mark IV, it is just that the German's gun was way better in penetration and accuracy. The Mark IV will win because it hits first, not because it can necessarily survive a hit from the T34. BTW, the russian 76.2 didn't even penetrate as well as the Sherman's 75.

[xerxes]

Thanks Marlow. I always like to see some actual data in the discussion.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

In BB that will be rectified in part of the gun optics; a fine 75mm cannon used in the IV will knock out smaller tanks ( usually ) before they get in range. Also the armour needs to be strentghened; after all the IV was a formidable adversary to the T-34 with its 76,2 mm gun.

My opinion in the end; forget what I said about the Stuart. And, yes, the Panzer IV is UNDERmodeled in CM BO.

The undermodeling is not in the armor thickness values, these are correct, except for the always questionalble quality modifier. It is only because of the hit model for the turret.

And before somebody jumps at me read my first posting in this thread, I don't have a problem with the Mk IV undermodeling, there are more imprtant things to care for.

[MikeyD]

Marlow asks what's wrong with the Stuart model?

Well, for one thing the difficulties of fighting in a two man turret aren't modeled, and when the vehicle's closed-up the commander doesn't really have much beyond one movable periscope for outside vision. Sure, the mgs are undermodeled for infantry supression in the Stuart but the same can be said of every vehicle in the game!

CMBB's supposed to have reworked the effectiveness of mgs vs infantry (poor infantry!) and they also have a 2 man turret model. Oh yeh, and don't forget 'Death Clock' too. Just because you hole a PzIV first doesn't mean you're going to survive the encounter! It'll be interesting to see how the revised Stuart does in the game. Of course, the Stuart may be overlooked since it sounds like CMBB's going to be light tank heaven. PzIIs, Czech Pz38ts, maybe a couple Hungarian and Italian light tanks(?), and so many Russian light tank and AC types I couldn't list them all! Yee-haw!

[Marlow]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Well, for one thing the difficulties of fighting in a two man turret aren't modeled, and when the vehicle's closed-up the commander doesn't really have much beyond one movable periscope for outside vision. Sure, the mgs are undermodeled for infantry supression in the Stuart but the same can be said of every vehicle in the game!

No real arguement over the two man turret. I just think that the Stuart is not too far off base, and not nearly the Mark IV killer that I have repeatedly seem people claim that it (and the M8 Greyhound)is (not only in this thread).

[Jack Carr]

Prinz Eugen posts:

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

Now that you think of it; IRL the IV F gave T-34s, some formidable AFVs a spanking. In CM, the same IV is vulnerable to a Stuart, a little reconnaissance tank.

After this, tell me that there isn't fixing to do ( or somefink ) on the part of BTS !

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

Amen brother! Something is wrong.

Marlow posts:

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

Since I am often on the Stuart end of M IV - Stuart fight, I must say that I am surprized that you all are bad mouthing the M IV. From my experience, going head to head with a M IV is almost always a bad idea. If you are losing to Stuarts in a strait up fight, you are doing something wrong.

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

Can you give us an idea of what we might be doing wrong? I often see Panzer MKIV's get penetrated frontally by Stuart's. I see it happen all the time. I've been talked down from the ledge before on tank accuracy but I'm not hallucinating that my MKIV has been knocked out by a Stuart. It really happens. Marlow you said you ran tests with Stuart's and MKIV's. Could you give details on the testing. For example, at what range are you testing?

I have no regrets when I get knocked out by a Stuart from a side or rear shot, when that happens then I'm doing something wrong, but when I get knocked out frontally by a reconnaisance tank I just kinda scratch my head and change my battle plans.

And while we're on the subject, I have lost Tiger I's to Stuart's frontally as well, more than once.

"Front Penetration at Weak Point". Those words haunt me in my sleep.

[Redwolf]

I am out of this madness.

Somewhere they must teach writing before reading.