Panzer IVH

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

If a Stuart, a tank that, as I quoted, was withdrawn from use as a MBT as early as 1942 [...]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

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

Sligthly offtopic ; wasn't AFV synonym to tank ?

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

'AFV' stands for Armored Fighting Vehicle, and most broadly describes any armored vehicle that is armed with something that shoots. Thus it could include anything from APCs to SPAs and anything in between. More commonly it refers to gun armed vehicles, omitting those armed only with MGs or ATRs. It definitely includes tanks, TDs, and AGs. Some might quibble over the inclusion of SPA, but most of the people I've read would, I think, say that if it has an armored shield it passes.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

AFV also includes SPWs (APCs) and the modern day IFVs.

Seriously, German AFV production looks damned impressive until you realize some sources include armoured halftracks and armoured recce cars as "AFVs".

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

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?

Ok, as I already posted:

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

At 250m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 17

At 400m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 15

At 800m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 6

At 1500m, the Stuarts lost 50 to 4

[/QB]

[Ben Galanti]

Is it actually in question that a Stuart could penetrate PzIV turret? Now how often the turret is hit may be questioned, but I don't think it odd that when the turret is it, the PzIV is KO'd... I don't think I've ever seen a PzIV lost frontally to a non-turret hit though.

Ben

[Jack Carr]

Ben Galanti posts:

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

Is it actually in question that a Stuart could penetrate PzIV turret? Now how often the turret is hit may be questioned, but I don't think it odd that when the turret is hit, the PzIV is KO'd... I don't think I've ever seen a PzIV lost frontally to a non-turret hit though.

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

I don't think that it is in question that a Stuart could knock out a MKIV or as you ask penetrate a MKIV turret. What I feel is in question is the frequency at which it happens. From my experience, it happens alot. From Marlow's experience it is rare. I don't doubt that Marlow is speaking the truth from Marlow's experience. I'm not lying either.

I previously posted that, "I was talked down from the ledge about main cannon accuracy". In this thread, the same people that said I was crazy about the German tanks not being able to hit the broad side of a barn have now admitted that there is a problem with the game engine in reference to gun accuracy.

I'm with Redwolf on this one. I will be backing out after this post but not because of spelling errors or incorrect grammer and punctuation but because one day people tell you your ass is moldy and the next day they are agreeing with you.

[M Hofbauer]

that is a poor way of testing effectiveness. the battles will tend to become lopsided in favor of a slightly better vehicle if you don't seperate the vehicles into one-on-one firing lanes.

[Redwolf]

Another variable in the quotation is the knockout-on-penetration probablity, or rather the chance of abadonation on penetration.

For small AP (not HC) rounds, after penetration a substancial fraction of their maximum penetration ability, it is questionable whether the effect on crew and hardware is as bad a long 88 striking a Stuart.

I think JasonC conducted some testing on CMBO that indicated that the smalll penetrations do lead to abandonation will a smaller probablity, but the verdict was that the difference is too small to be realistic.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

that is a poor way of testing effectiveness. the battles will tend to become lopsided in favor of a slightly better vehicle if you don't seperate the vehicles into one-on-one firing lanes.

Ok, a valid point. I did the mass on mass test to compensate for the lower point value of the Stuart, and set up a 10 on 8 fight. But, I just did the tests again with one on one firing lanes. (3 tiles wide, separated by 2 tiles of woods). There were 8 lanes on the map, and I did 5 trials from each range. The results were not too much different from the previous test:

At 250m, 11 Mark IVs lost and 32 Stuarts

At 400m, 14 Mark IVs lost and 33 Stuarts

At 800m, 6 Mark IVs lost and 34 Stuarts

At 1500m, 1 Mark IVs lost and 39 Stuarts

As you can see, the results for the Mark IV are still significantly better than for the Stuart (certainly more than "slightly better").

Oh, and on the 1500m range, a couple of times, the Tac AI ordered the Stuarts to hug the woods, which blocked LOS to the Mark IVs (it seems the Tac AI doesn't think that a Stuart is credible threat, at least at that range). I had to order the poor digital crews back out into the test lane, and to their death, for the greater good.

[ August 19, 2002, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[PiggDogg]

Marlow,

I had to order the poor digital crews back out into the test lane, and to their death, for the greater good.

Lol. Good laugh.

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[xerxes]

That's heartless! Poor sods are running for their lives and some political commissar points a gun at their head and tells them to get back into the open. Mumbles some stuff about "statistical sampling size".

[MikeyD]

Just did a quick unscientific test on the CMBB Beta. Stuarts vs early MkIV Gs.

Ouch. You can tell they added a 'high quality optics' model to the German guns. I managed to immobilize a couple MkIVs but that didn't counter-balance the number of first round catastrophic penetrations on the Stuarts. Again, ouch.

Seems a 2-man-turret light tank vs medium tank encounter is more liable to turn out badly for the light tank in CMBB than in CMBO. alternately, maybe I just suck as a light tank commander!

[Marlow]

Originally posted by xerxes:

"statistical sampling size".

The size probably isn't big enough to justify claims that "A Mark IV will always kill 3 exactly times as many Stuarts at X meters." But it is certainly large enough to make general claims that the Mark IV is a far superior tank in a straight up shoot out. The more pronounced the effect, the smaller the sample size needed to provide evidence of that effect. Thus, it would probably take a larger sample size to determine whether a Sherman M4 or Panzer Mark IV was better at 400 meters than id does for the Mark IV and Stuart.

[xerxes]

Interesting at the longer ranges that the Stuart just falls to pieces. Makes sense though since the 37mm can't penetrate the PzIV turret at 1500m. Was the one PzIV taken out at that range due to a gun hit/immobilize/abandon sequence?

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Just did a quick unscientific test on the CMBB Beta. Stuarts vs early MkIV Gs.

Talk about science for my liking !

Thanks for the info ; now I'll sleep better !

[M Hofbauer]

thanks for redoing it in individual firing lanes. those results look more like what I have experienced so far.

our interpretations of the results seem to differ, though:

Originally posted by Marlow:

But it is certainly large enough to make general claims that the Mark IV is a far superior tank in a straight up shoot out.

- I wouldn't call a 33:14 result (~ 2:1) "far superior".

[Marlow]

Depends on the range. aprox. 2.3 to 1 is for the best range for the Stu. The 39 to 1 at 1500 seems a clear advantage.