CMBB: T-34 Armor Flaws?

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

As far as I know the armor quality has nothing to do with HEAT penetration as it is. Remember that we do not use tables to determine penetration, rather we use equations. The numbers that are displayed in the unit's details are highly simplified estimates.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

I apologise if I have underestimated the CM armour penetration model.

Now I think about it, I would not be surprised if Charles had a completely different equation running for HEAT penetration. He does have the correct slope affect for HEAT rounds, so I should have guessed he may well be using the correct formulas for armour quality.

Moral of the story is, do not “assume” BTS have got it wrong.

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

No need to apologize. Just keep reminding yourself that CM isn't ASL and you should do just fine

In ASL when things didn't work out "right" you had to fudge numbers. The reason is because that is all there was to deal with. The numbers themselves were (for the most part) abstractions as well, which meant personal interpretation was not necessarily wrong. Which is exactly why...

CM is based on forumlas using real world data. If the results are wrong, then either the raw data or the equations are in need of checking. If the raw data is correct, then it is the equation that needs to be changed. If the data is incorrect, then the equations can be left alone for a bit. But because the data we use is real world (as much as possible, anyway) there is no room for personal interpretiation.

With armor quality we have a problem with data. In this specific case, it is the inability to simulate (cleanly and precisely) the wide range of possible sets of data that poses the challenge to us. We certainly can't come up with the most accurate solution (a rewrite is necessary for that), but I know we can do something to at least partially simulate this important reality.

Steve

[Capitalistdoginchina]

I am no expert here so please axcuse my suggestions if they are not applicable.

1) Maybe several models of the T34 could be coded each with variable armour quality and/or plate thickness, when purchasing T34's the player only sees one model and one price, but the randomiser would decide which one you get each time.

2) Keep the armour quality at one fixed percentage but increase or decrease the possiblity of a weak point penetration accordingly.

CDIC

[Battlefront.com]

CDIC,

The first suggestion you make is not possible the way the game engine is written.

As for your second suggestion, that is similar to one thing we are contemplating. We can, fairly easily, make a hit randomly penetrate within certain parameters. For example, if the armor ranged between 40mm and 50mm, a round which hit with 45mm of penetration ability could in theory penetrate if that armor was towards the bottom of the thickness range. This would effectively do the same thing as having a hundred different T34 models. This isn't perfect either so there are more things we need to think about before we come up with a solid answer.

Steve

[Roksovkiy]

If the new data by rexford on armor is being used in CMBB, then tanks using cast armor should not get 100% quality ratings, unlike CMBO where the M-26 pershing with it’s cast glacis and turret armor having a 100% quality.

The panther rating is severe after reading that it used RHA armor and was over-armored from the spec sheets according to UK and US test data rating the glacis as 85mm, compared to soviet vehicles produced with armor under the spec sheet measurements.

Rexfords book has test results of high hardness flawed cast armor on the latest T-34/85s and IS-2's recorded by the U.S after the battle of Berlin. With this type of under spec high–hardness cast armor even a 60-70% armor quality would be better than historical.

[MikeyD]

I just checked the New Vanguard T34 book and it states that Aberdeen's test of a 1943 T34-76 considered the materials used to be of SUPERIOR quality to U.S. materials... I'm assuming they were talking about armor quality, because they were negative about pretty much every other feature of the tank.

As to Koprean War reports of Bazooka shells 'bouncing off' T34 armor, I always assumed the problem had been with the fuze not working on the highly sloped bow, not with penetration problems... though I may be wrong on this.

[Battlefront.com]

Roksovkiy, I am pretty sure that cast armor is treated differently (internally) than plate armor in CMBO. Remember, there are a LOT of things going on behind the surface that the player is not aware of. For example, BHN, rolled armor, face hardned armor, different AP projectile properties, etc. are all dealt with in VERY fine detail. We just don't show this stuff to the user because it would interfere with the game as a game.

As for the whole Panther armor quality debate, things have been brought to light to us (through Lorrin for the most part) which were not known when CMBO or his book with Robert Livingston both came out. From the looks of the data right now, it would appear that CMBO got it more right than wrong, and therefore expect only slightly different treatment for CMBB.

MikeyD, funny... we just received some data directly from Aberdeen (or so I recall) which stated that the armor was too soft. Hmmm... just goes to show how funky this whole thing is! And as for the Bazooka rounds not penetrating we do think this was because of the slope. The round was pointed and therefore probably prone to slipping on extremely sloped surfaces. We have little direct evidence for this, but the theory has some pretty sturdy legs. The Panzerfaust would not have such a problem, but the Panzerschreck might have. This is something we are still looking into.

Steve

[PJungnitsch]

MikeyD, you may find this interesting, what the Soviets thought of the Aberdeen report.

This quote from Russian Battlefield shows the type of problems the Soviets could have with armour, in this case with the Stalin:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.<hr></blockquote>

[TSword]

Words from a german soldier....pah, a nazi, they always lie.... (Have the book with the statement of course).

So BTS will assure that T-34 have 95 - 100 % quality armor until PROVED otherwise by hard facts (A thing logically impossible by the way).

I bet everyone a beer !

[JasonC]

"I always assumed the problem had been with the fuze not working on the highly sloped bow, not with penetration problems"

No, that idea does not fit the combat reports at all. In Korea, T-34/85s took up to a dozen 60mm bazooka hits on all faces, including hull sides and even rear, without being penetrated. It is not a matter of the bow or front glacis only, and it is not a matter of a few rounds failing from other angles. 60mm bazookas consistently failed from all angles.

75mm HEAT from recoilless rifles also failed to penetrate, even with turret hits. 88mm HEAT from new bazookas (aka panzerschreck copies, in effect) and 105mm HEAT from howitzers got penetrations and kills.

As for the statement that armor quality doesn't matter for HEAT penetration in CM today, I cannot reconcile that with the test results I have seen. You get penetrations that only make sense due to armor quality effects applying vs. HEAT rounds.

For example, bazookas routinely KO King Tigers with side hits, against 80mm armor at 30 degrees slope. The armor quality rating of the KTs explains this, but if armor acted as 100% quality against HEAT then it would not occur.

If recoding or other modeling changes can use multiple armor quality ratings for things like front vs. side plates or AP vs. HEAT ammo hitting, that would be great. But I expect it would also be work, because I don't see signs of it already being there today.

I appreciate that modeling armor quality is a particularly difficult problem, because there are numerous factors varying from test to test, test results are spotty, use different standards, etc. I simply reiterate that one must keep an eye on side effects of adopting a quality number based on one known match up, rather than expecting it to give accurate results for other match ups.

The problem is that one is not just measuring one quantity. Or, otherwise stated, that a single armor quality number for a vehicle, against all weapons and from all facings, is an abstraction and an approximation. There is nothing in principle wrong with that, given the difficulty of the problem.

But when difficulties like that force approximations to be used, getting a "central" approximation, one that minimizes total error across all likely threat types, becomes important. And is not going to result from using an estimate taken from just one case (high caliber APC, e.g.).

The analogy is when you have to draw an extrapolation line through thin data. You draw the line between the points, splitting them, to minimize a least squares measure of total error. Rather than drawing it through one of the points, which may be an outlier.

For what it is worth.

[mrcitizenkane]

Incredible. Read the review by the US Aberdeen engineers on an evalutaion T34 the Soviets gave the US in 1942. This was written by a Russian General that got the Report. Fact not fiction or hear say!

Aberdeen test report T34 :eek:

[MikeyD]

Zooks knocking out King Tigers but not T34s makes no logical sense.

I have read reports about how Bazooka penetrations of Panthers would sometimes only blowing the hatches open but not disabling the vehicle - which means the zook penetrated Panthers too. I can't see how it could be anything but fuze problems on highly angled armor (T34 hull front/sides/ back were ALL highly angled. The Bazooka was a first-generation weapon and fuze problems like this would be expected. In the 60s South Vietnamese soldiers with their little throw-away LAWs were able to knock out NVA T34s.

[Battlefront.com]

TSword.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>So BTS will assure that T-34 have 95 - 100 % quality armor until PROVED otherwise by hard facts (A thing logically impossible by the way).<hr></blockquote>

Trolling again I see. Well, to answer your question as if it wasn't bait, the answer is what I have said above. We have NOT "assure" anything now because we haven't made final decisions. But one thing is clear, Soviet armor quality DID suffer problems at various stages in the war to various degrees depending on conditions. The evidence to support this is beyond question.

The only question is how much and to what degree. There is NO way to answer this with any degree of scientific certainty. However, that is also true for hundreds of things in CM, so we will take a look at the evidence, weigh it against our considerable expertise in this area, run it by other experts, and model things accordingly. That is, unless you have a better idea since you are apparently smarter than the rest of us

Jason, you need to keep in mind that we have no idea what T-34/85s were being shot at in Korea. It is definite that production quality went up as the war went on and that the worst flaws were found in the earlier T34/76 family of vehicles. Since that is primarily what we are talking about in this thread, the experince of post-WWII (or at best late WWII) manufactured T34/85 vehicles must be taken with a pinch of salt.

There is also other ample scientific evidence to show that the shape of a round becomes inreasingly important the more the armor is sloped. It is highly likely that the pointy shape of the Bazooka round, coupled with its fairly modest penetrating ability, caused it to suffer when striking highly sloped armor. The physics we have looked at suggest that the round would "slip" and angle upwards, in effect increasing the slope effect of the armor. The resulting detonation would therefore be proportionally less effective. If the round was just barely capable of penetrating, then the significant slope deflection could be enough to defeat the round. To contrast this, the larger Panzerschreck and later Bazooka rounds were more powerful, which means it could suffer the same effect but still have enough energy to penetrate.

As for armor quality and HEAT... armor type (i.e. rolled, face hardened, cast) is definately something that affects HEAT performance, and is indeed taken into account by the penetration equations in CMBO.

Steve

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[mrcitizenkane]

Cool stuff I got off the net, written by a Soviet General.

"EVALUATION OF THE T-34 AND KV TANKS BY ENGINEERS OF THE ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS, SUBMITTED BY FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING TANKS

T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation

The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.

The condition of the tanks

The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera). After that, it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.

The heavy tank KV-1 is still functional. Tests were continued, although it had many mechanical defects.

T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation

The silhouette/configuration of the tanks

Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.

Armor

A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate Sherman's galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)

T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation

Hull

The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during a water crossings, as well as the upper hull during a rain. In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.

The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.

Turret

The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets (Americans tested the T-34 with a two-men turret - Valera). The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system.

T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation

Armament

The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).

Optic

The general opinion: the best construction (please notice - the best construction doesn't mean the best at all - Valera) in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development.

Tracks

The Americans like very much the idea of a steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no reason for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.

Suspension

On the T-34, it is poor. The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected (American "Shermans" and "General Lees" had very poor suspension as well. At the same time the British used Christie's suspension and were quite satisfied - Valera). On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.

Engine

The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and, therefore, the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that:

the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;

its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc (that claim was accepted, and later T-34 variants received the new, better, "Cyclon" filter - Valera). On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.

Transmission

Without a doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.

Side friction clutches

Out of a doubt, very poor. In USA, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.

General comments

From the American point of view, our tanks are slow (Americans got the T-34 with a 4-speed gearbox. With a such gearbox, T-34 could use the 4th speed on a firm and even surface - i.e. on roads. Thus, the max speed on the cross-country was 25.6 km/h. On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox to be installed. This gearbox allowed to drive with a 30.5 km/h. - Valera). Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular, the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the transmission links on the T-34. After much torment they made a new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks mechanisms demand very frequent fine-tuning.

Conclusions, suggestions

On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.

The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.

Make the tracks thicker.

Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks manoeuvrability.

Abandon the use of friction clutches.

Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.

Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.

Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.

Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.

The head of the 2nd Department

of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army,

major-general Khlopov"

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

...The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera)....

The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).

5700 feet per second? That's 1900 m/s. More than the high velocity 120mm of the M1A1 and the Leopard 2. I highly doubt that number.

[mrcitizenkane]

This was translated from Russian to English, which was already done on the site. You are right, I think it was probably translated wronge. That would be a mile a second.

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:

...The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera)....

The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second).

5700 feet per second? That's 1900 m/s. More than the high velocity 120mm of the M1A1 and the Leopard 2. I highly doubt that number.</font>

[Slappy]

I have no idea how the game engine works, but here is my suggestion for modeling variable armor quality for the Soviet tanks without having hundreds of models.

The capacity to have random unit attributes already exists in the game, specifically for ammo, special equipment (PFs) and command bounsus. This system can be used in the same way for armor quality.

Whenever a 'variable quality' vehicle is purchased, assign a quality measure randomly in 5pt increments between 75% (or whatever) and 100%. Put this in as an addition to that unit info table and display it in the scenario creation page. This makes it random for QBs and editable by scenario designers.

You then just make a reference to the table for armor hits and multiply the armor thickness by the percentage. This allows the formula access to a quality number without hard coding the number.

If you wanted to get even trickier, you could have 2 numbers assigned differently, and pull one or the other into the equation depending on what type of shell hit (You could even have one quality greater than 1). This gets past the different quality implications for different rounds thing.

I freely admit that I am not a developer, but convincing developers that they can do things that they tell me they cannot based on other things they tell me is a big part of my job.

[JasonC]

Those "little" M72s from Nam are 10% bigger caliber than the WW II bazooka round - 66mm vs. 60mm. And they use later generation HEAT warheads, instead of the primitive 1st generation designs used by WW II bazookas. The Nam LAW was rated to penetrate 300mm of plain steel, and later versions increased that to 350mm. Even the lower number is 50% more effective than the panzerfaust and about as effective as the schreck or US 3.5" bazooka.

Yes, Virginia, that big bulky WW II era bazooka tube is throwing a smaller caliber round than that little disposable LAW, and one with less than 1/3rd the penetration capability. In case everybody forget, the 60mm bazooka was the first weapon of its kind in the world. It had not exactly been perfected the day it was invented. LAWs replaced them, and replaced even the 3.5" version from Korea, because they did the same armor-killing job and did it more easily.

I am well aware that T-34/85s from Korea were higher quality than T-34/76s from 1941 or 1942. But with the HEAT ratings you have, *any* reduction of quality number for them would mean no bouncing zook rounds, which is not correct. I am quite open to the suggestion that the effect of angle on HEAT rounds is more extreme than CM presently models it. Which presumably one would do by reducing the penetration numbers of HEAT rounds at higher slopes. But then, I don't decide whether it needs tweaking.

Whether armor quality effects also need to be included in that is another question, but the answer is probably yes. Because the same sort of thing lets bazookas KO Panthers by hitting the lower front hull, because of the low armor quality rating. There is little evidence such penetrations occurred, and the armor quality numbers seem to be for the thicker plates. Which is part and parcel of the whole issue we are discussing, how one can get one quality number per vehicle to get as many round-plate match ups correct, as possible.

Consider the interaction of HEAT vs. slope and quality effects in a case that will arise in Russian. Early German 75mm HEAT (A) from Pz IVs or StuGs firing at sloped T-34 armor. The combat reports (at least for hull hits) seem to be negative. And not for T-34/85s in Korea. Now, is a .75 quality times a 45mm thickness at 60 degrees slope, going to defeat a HEAT round that was rated to penetrate 70mm at 30 degrees?

Judging by other angle effects, you'd expect 70mm at 30 to equate to 42mm at 60. Thus a 90% quality rating would mean numerous kills, and 85% would be regular ones (penetration 10% higher than adjusted resistence). That is the earliest 75mm HEAT, the A model. B model was rated 75mm at 30 degrees, so you'd expect it to defeat them routinely with any quality reduction.

The Germans in 1941 seemed to think they needed 105mm HEAT, rated 80mm at 30 degrees for the earliest A model. Which suggests the combination of quality and slope vs. HEAT effect was only about .95, and possibly 1.00. Were they just dumb and wrong? Were Pz IVs with short 75L24 guns in fact perfectly adequate against T-34s?

The point is simply that the "right" armor quality number for 45mm at 60 degrees against 75L48 at 1500 meters may not be the right armor quality number for the same vs. 75mm HEAT. So it pays to be careful, that is all. You have to check all the match ups, not just "peg" one to a lone datapoint and expect everything else to land correctly.

I think I have made this point clearly enough by now, so I will just drop it. If you are going to hear it, you've heard it by now.

[Battlefront.com]

Slappy,

Doing something "random" is one of the current suggestions.

Jason,

I think I have made this point clearly enough by now, so I will just drop it. If you are going to hear it, you've heard it by now.

We've heard you (more than once ). Yes, obviously we will have to look at the results as they happen and judge if the quality ratings are correct. However, it is not necessarily going to be an open and shut case. For example, we were happy (and still are, for the most part) with our decisions regarding the Panther. Some completely agree, some completely disagree, some just troll because they don't have anything intelligent to say. Same thing will happen in CMBB no matter what we do.

We are always, always..., in a losing position when it comes to situations like this. Too many people take delight in second guessing our decisions for things to be different. To some extent this is a good thing because we are not perfect and therefore do make mistakes.

As for StuG and PzIV taking on T34s... there are a lot of factors to consider which have nothing to do with armor quality:

1. The bulk of the German armor was armed with weak 37mm guns, with a healthy number at 50mm and a decent minority with 75mm low velocity.

2. The majority of German AT assets were 37mm with a minority being 50mm. 88mm Flak and 100/105mm Howitzers were hard to find assets in general, but especially in a pinch. They were also easily knocked out.

3. The Soviet "heavies" that the Germans had troubles taking out were armed with high velocity 76.2mm guns.

The point here is that very few German weapons even had a chance against the Soviet "heavies", even when they did happen to be in the right place at the right time. And when they did meet, it had better have been at close range. Because as one German officer noted, they could hit and kill German tanks at 1000m while their own guns didn't have a chance of scoring a kill, or perhaps even a hit (he noted they were fast, hard to track targets).

As for HEAT rounds... remember that they were NOT issued in large quanities, nor were they being fired by high velocity guns. This meant that they obviously weren't the most commonly used round, nor were they potentially as effective in battles of motion as they could have been.

All I am trying to say here is that squinting at a few abstract numbers in a table or two does NOT tell the whole story. A lot of stuff went on during those first months of war, some of which (I think) are critically important to keep in mind.

Steve

[JasonC]

Actually, 105mm howitzers were quite common, being the standard army field piece and thus present in every division in some numbers. Which is more than can be said for any sort of tank. They used the 105s precisely because they were available. They had around 2500 of the things; all told the artillery howitzers were as numerous as tanks. 150s would have worked too, but were less numerous, harder to use for direct fire since they were harder to maneuver and set up, and more valuable. 88s weren't rare overall, but were under army control early on. Most of them were in the Luftwaffe, for defense of Germany and rear area AA-only work, but they had deployed over 2000 by then.

But they certainly acted as though 75mm HEAT could not do the job. They used gun fronts instead, which were harder to use, operationally speaking, than AFVs (since they were attacking). They did not start producing tons of Pz IVs as magic answers to the T-34, not until they put long 75s in them. They did not accept the performance of 75L24 Pz IIIs in 1943 either, when they had better HEAT available, but instead phased out turreted IIIs altogether, in favor of StuGs.

75mm HEAT was not rare over the war as a whole, though it may have been in 1941 for 75L24. The Germans made gobs of HEAT for their towed 75mm PAK in 1942 and 1943, using it as a sort of duel purpose round. It was actually more common than HE for those, well into 1943. Specifically, they made more than 4 million HEAT rounds for 75mm towed PAK, model 40 and model 97/38, in 1942 and 1943, compared to 3.7 million HE and 2.8 million AP.

By the time they had HL-C, those should have been effective against T-34s, and a "flat" enough hit on the turret would be effective even with earlier HEAT models. With the earlier 75L24, again flat enough turret hits should have been effective.

But it is most unlikely the early 75mm HEAT rounds were effective against the T-34 front hull, since if they had proved so the German presumably would have noticed and said something about it. And they specifically regarded 105mm HEAT as the caliber required, stating positively that none of their tank guns were effective from the front and at range, without weak point hits (e.g. turret ring).

In other words, the tactical combat reports, the methods used to deal with the Russian heavies, tank development decisions etc all only made sense if 75L24 HEAT was not usually effective against T-34 front hulls. Not just in July or August of 1941. They did not settle for 75L24 in 1942 either, or settle for the late-model Pz IIIs. They gave up turrets to get the long 75 on StuGs, which is not what you'd expect if the prior gun was routinely effective against the main enemy threat.

(BTW, a quibble - the 76mm on the T-34s is an intermediate velocity gun, like the US short 75, not a particularly high velocity gun. The German 50L42 has a higher muzzle velocity, same general area. It is high velocity compared to the 75L24 certainly, but only about 3/4 that of the 50L60 and 5/6 that of the 75L48. The Russian 76mm the Germans used on Marders, which was indeed about equivalent to the 75L43, was a different and longer weapon).

I realize things probably aren't settled. But a 1941 picture in which all the German CM player has to do is buy 75L24 tanks or StuGs to deal with T-34s would be rather disappointing. As for the numbers of those types, they had fielded 1733 AFVs with 75L24 by the end of 1941 - Pz IV or StuG - out of 7650 gun-armed AFVs of all types. About 1/4 of the vehicle fleet, in other words. T-34s and KVs combined made up a smaller portion of the Russian fielded force to that date, more like 1/6.

So it is not a minor issue at all. If early 75mm HEAT is modeled as fully effective vs. T-34s from the front (not needing particularly flat turret hits), then the German AFV fleet will have more heavy tank killers in it than the Russian fleet has heavies in it, in 1941. If it is modeled as needing particularly flat turret hits, then the Germans will have to use gun fronts, closing on the flank tactics, or get rarer weak point penetrations, or turret hits from a few shooters, etc.

Then in 1942, the portion of the Russian AFV fleet that are armor heavy rises to more like 55-60%. The portion of the German fleet fielded by year end that can deal with them is around 1/5 if 75L24 is not effective, and 3/8 if it is effective. The whole evolution of the Russian armor threat and the German AFV counter is entirely different if 75L24s routinely kill T-34s, any angle and any plate.

I think it is more important to get this right than to have the effective range of 75L43 correct to the last 100m or what-not. They long 75s are going to work against T-34 from the front at medium ranges with any realistic quality numbers used. What is at stake there is only the exact distance the effectiveness assured to be there, extends out to. When long 75s show up, they will change the gun-armor match ups, as they should, regardless of the way the armor quality stuff is tweaked.

I realize you did not say either way whether 75L24 HEAT will routinely KO T-34s with front hull hits. And it might be addressed by tweaking the way HEAT works against particularly high armor slopes, instead of armor qualities. I said I'd drop it, so I finally will - sorry, lol.

[MikeyD]

The little PzIII remained a popular vehicle with their German crews precisely because the HEAT round for the short 75mm kept them a viable weapon. Not as glamorous as the Panther's HV cannon of course, but viable. There should be some accuracy trade-off for the slow-flying shell (there certainly was for U.S. postwar M48's 90mm HEAT!) that would 'even the odds' against maurading T34's and make all short-75mm PzIIIs less attractive to purchase.

I was wondering if the 105mm HEAT was intended more to provide some last-ditch self defense for an artillery battery if enemy armor appeared on the horizon racing in their direction, and less as a dedicated offensive weapon. Howitzers do make better targets than those ground-hugging 75mm Paks.

[Stixx]

I trust BTS to get it right.

If they don't then there will be enough people complaining that they will do something about it

One thing i want to know though is why they don't model the smiley tank?

BTS, fix or do somefink!

[ January 31, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Stixx ]