Russian Armor in CMBB

[dave68124]

Has anyone noticed a problem in CMBB with the rating of Russian armor? After playing a few games of CMBB, it appears to me that the Russian armor, even at close range engagements (less than 500m), is substantially disadvantaged against the Tiger and Panther. I understand this is somewhat reflected historically, but the -34 has a 76mm gun and compared to equivalent U.S. armor in CMBO, the chances of a -34 knocking out a Tiger in CMBB is considerablly less than a Sherman v. Tiger engagement. It seems to me at least that Russian armor is not rated appropriately in CMBB. Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this or if it my imagination.

Thanks,

Dave

[Pzman]

My understanding is that the T-34s 76mm gun is not as good as the US 76mm gun, I may be wrong though.

[Commissar]

Are they hitting from the front or what? From what I understand, by 1943 and when the glamour cats made their debut, the old T-34/76mm had to almost be at point blank range to take out a Tiger or Panther. Flank shots were more forgiving but by 1943 the T-34 was showing its age quite noticeably.

While the 76.2mm gun was an excellent gun in '41 it quickly became inadequate to deal with heavier German armor by mid-War. Another factor that may explain why the Sherman 76 is better at taking out the glamour cats is the quality of the ammo. Soviet ammo was not as high quality as US ammo. The Soviet typically overcame the quality problem with higher caliber ammo. Availability of tungsten rounds would also be important.

[ October 13, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Andrew H.]

That's right - the 76 mm gun on the T-34 is pretty close in performance - slightly worse, actually, than the 75mm gun on the Sherman.

[killmore]

I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gun

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

That's right - the 76 mm gun on the T-34 is pretty close in performance - slightly worse, actually, than the 75mm gun on the Sherman.

The analogy I've heard is:

Soviet 76.2mm is nearly as good as US 75mm

Soviet 85mm AA is nearly as good as US 76mm

This is a bit of a generalization, given the diff.caliber Soviet 76's, but it's probably close.

[zukkov]

hell the russian 76 even has problems in early war. it has a tough time penetrating the mkIIIs front up as well, not to mention the mkIVs...

[Mud]

Well, don't forget that the penetration and optics models have changed. In CMBO, most any penetration could KO a tank, while in CMBB, even a turret penetration from a decent gun won't necessarily even freak out the receiving crew enough to get them to bail, let alone KO the tank. In addition, the German vehicles might have a higher accuracy due to their optics gear.

Also... the T-34 was upgunned to the T-34/85 probably for a reason, and tank destroyers like the SU-100 also have a part to play. The IS-2's power is also quite hefty... if it hits.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by killmore:

I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gun

Do you have a source for this? I don't think it's correct. I haven't used a Tiger in BB, but t-34s have a problem with the 80 mm of armor on the StuGs and later Pz IIIs; they shouldn't be able to penetrate the tiger from the front at all.

[Sitzkrieg]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

The analogy I've heard is:

Soviet 76.2mm is nearly as good as US 75mm

Soviet 85mm AA is nearly as good as US 76mm

This is a bit of a generalization, given the diff.caliber Soviet 76's, but it's probably close.

Actually, this is a pretty accurate statement in some quick tests I did to check this "generalization" out. T-34/85s are deadly to Tigers and Panthers (especially Tigers) up to around 750m, like the Sherman 76 in CMBO. After that range, the Tiger and Panther have the advantage with their optics.

In similar tests, the T-34/76 is completely outclassed at all but shorter ranges, even by the PzIV(l).

BTW, these tests were at 3-to-1 or greater odds in favor of the Soviets.

Keith

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

My understanding is that the T-34s 76mm gun is not as good as the US 76mm gun, I may be wrong though.

It is not as good as the US 75

[flamingknives]

Posted by: Andrew Hedges

quote:

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

Originally posted by killmore:

I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gun

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

Do you have a source for this? I don't think it's correct. I haven't used a Tiger in BB, but t-34s have a problem with the 80 mm of armor on the StuGs and later Pz IIIs; they shouldn't be able to penetrate the tiger from the front at all.

I think he means the US 76mm. That would make sense.

[ October 14, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[killmore]

The source was History channel.

And yes that was 76mm gun on a T-34. (I don't know which specific type of 76mm)

We are talking extremely close ranges here. Probably less than 50 meters. Even if there was no penetration then 76mm was breaking off a chunks of tigers armour. Second shot was then fatal.

The program was about Zitadelle.

I do believe that at longer ranges 76mm was totally useless.

But then again Dailmers 40mm nailed my Tiger at 600m (front armour). So it is probably possible in CMBB too.

Also there was specification of "was able". So this is not 80% of the time.

[ October 14, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[Scots Grey]

Ok we are not comparing like with like here the russian 76.2mm gun on the T-34 is a good deal shorter in caliber than the American 76.

The 85mm gun(which is also on the KV-85)has amuch lower muzzle velocity than the American 76 and both which is less powerful than either the 7f/L43 on the Panther or the 17pdr on British Tanks

I have the figures somewhere and will try and post them when I have more time.

[Nippy]

Everything you wanted to know about Armor Penatration.

The only one missing from the list is the American 76mm.

Also, here is some quick data from CMBB itself:

Year is 1944, Ammo compared is standard AP and is assumed to hit 0 degree armor and 100 meters.

Soviet 85 L55 gun - 128mm

American 76mm - 123mm

Soviet 76.2mm gun - 86mm

American 75mm - 90mm

At much longer ranges +1000m the 76.2 losses to the 75mm, while the 85mm surpasses the American 76mm by a tiny margin. Of course, Soviet Main guns have the added benifit of canister rounds and higher HE blast value.

Fun fact: The Soviet 57mm L/73 is almost identical in preformance to the American 76mm up to ranges of 1000 meters and it seems to work better against sloped armor.

[EightInchArty]

Bigger problem than gun in T-34's is lack of commander. Two man turret doesn't allow anybody to look for targets/dangers, while shooting the gun. Look at the game; When T-34 fires (pre '43 model?) it's essentially buttoned.

Time to sneak those tank hunters close...

[K_Tiger]

Again, i startet a thread about the penetration datas from the "short" shermans, and in reply, i got the answer, that BTS mixed the ammunition from early to late war. Ok, this was a decission from BTS and it was ok for me, due to the fact, cmbo was more in the late part of WWII.

Now, i see shermans in 42`with nearly the same penetration stats. Why this now?? The Guy above me says 90mm at 100 meters 0° degree, Achtung Panzer (dont know theyr sorces) say 66mm at 500m with 30° degree. In the game we see 93mm at 500 meters 0° and 77 at 30°.

Im wonder, where the name "Pop-Gun" cames from...Only from encountered Tigers couldn be, there where to few around.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by EightInchArty:

Bigger problem than gun in T-34's is lack of commander. Two man turret doesn't allow anybody to look for targets/dangers, while shooting the gun. Look at the game; When T-34 fires (pre '43 model?) it's essentially buttoned.

Time to sneak those tank hunters close...

Their spotting is freakin' terrible while buttoned...in one battle I'm firing MG34's like crazy (for 15 turns now), and they never get spotted by the T-34's. Or, if they do the T-34 loses target-lock when my unit gets pinned...and then they have BIG trouble acquiring new targets.

[zukkov]

i was suprised to see that the 76/L52 gun on the su76m is not as good as the 76/L42 gun on the t34. which one was known as the "crash boom"?

[K_Tiger]

Originally posted by zukkov:

i was suprised to see that the 76/L52 gun on the su76m is not as good as the 76/L42 gun on the t34. which one was known as the "crash boom"?

Me too...but i dont know to mutch about russian weapons.

I was too surprised to see, that the german at-riffles are far better then the russian ones...i think, i read the opposite.

[EightInchArty]

The famous 76.2L52 was a true multipurpose gun; Artillery, AA, AT and Tank Gun. In fact SU 76's were served as SP-Artillery or SP- AT guns as needed.

Germans found them superior to their Pak 50 guns and captured AT pieces were used widely until arival of superior Pak 75 gun. According of Franz Kurowski's Panzer Aces, the gun was lethal to almost every tank in arsenal at ranges closer than 500m, and could kill Pz III at 1000m.

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by killmore:

I came as a big suprise to germans that at ranges under 100m 76mm was able to penetrate Front of the Tiger.

The tiger was specially designed to withstand T-34 76mm gun

The history channel goof up alot. According to 'Weapons Testing Ground at Kummersdorf'

by Wolfgang Fleischer, the Tiger was immune to the standard soviet 76mm from all directions and ranges.

It states this changed in late 1943 with 76mm sub-caliber ammo penetrations reported at < 300m on side and rear plates. No frontal or mantle penetrations.

[EightInchArty]

Originally posted by Karl_Smasher:

The history channel goof up alot. According to 'Weapons Testing Ground at Kummersdorf'

by Wolfgang Fleischer, the Tiger was immune to the standard soviet 76mm from all directions and ranges.

It depends on too many facts to be reliable. AT rifles were able to penetrate vision blocks and gunnery optics of Tiger tank and thats where you aimed. Same goes to AT- guns. You can aim the thing where you want to, if you are half deasent gunner, so pure armor mm- reading vs gun penetration is academic at best.

[ October 14, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: EightInchArty ]

[Warmaker]

I still have yet to lose a Tiger I to a Russian 76mm. From the flanks/rear they should have a chance at very short ranges but they don't make my crew flinch if they hit me from the rear.

Sorry, the old trick in CMBO for a lucky hit just doesn't happen oftenly in CMBB. You're going to have to earn your kill against Big Cats in CMBB. The other thing is the caliber of the penetrating round. It just seems that smaller caliber rounds that penetrate don't really do too much to even a regular crew. On the other end of the spectrum a 75mm/L70 will wreak havok if it penetrates. I don't even worry much about AT Rifles too much in early war scenarios/QBs.

[Andrew H.]

Yeah, the history channel is wrong a lot. It's possible that the history channel was talking about the sides of the Tiger, and not the front. IIRC, the side armor on the Tiger is 80mm, which is what the Germans generally regarded as T-34 proof - cf the StuG F/8, the Pz III L/M, etc. So it's conceivable that the Germans believed that the Tiger's side armor would be impervious to the T-34/76 from the side at any range, and were supprised by extremely close range side knockouts.