What are good russian TDs in 44-45?

[Tigrii]

What are good russian tank destroyers in 1944-1945 that can fight Tigers and Panthers on relatively equal terms (if there are any)?

[Lumbergh]

Try the su-100...1945 only. A bit of an eggshell with a hammer, but, still is better than an eggshell with a wimpy gun.

[Halberdier]

IS-2 and ISU 152 s/b effective, thought I haven't tried late war as the Soviets. The Germans will always have the range advantage due to better optics, but just get close and/or gang up on them.

SU-100 s/b good, but IIRC someone mentioned that they never historically say action or did so very late in war. [Edit to add note that I was corrected on the SU-100 usage. ]

cheers!

-gabe-

[ November 20, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Halberdier ]

[Guest Mike]

The SU-100 saw considerable action in 1945.

[jwxspoon]

The SU-100 in CMBB is as effective as the Panzer IV/70 was in CMBO.

jw

[Soddball]

Hey, look, another thread of Tigrii's which belongs in the Tips and Tricks forum.

[Major Jerkov]

KV-85's should be capable, dont know if they were produced in 44' or 45' though, however... its not a TD, plz disregard... or something.

[ November 21, 2002, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Major Jerkov ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

SU-100 is an excellent killer. Great mobility, powerful gun with formidable armour penetration and big blast value, good sloped frontal armor, small silhouette, cupola for easier spotting and all this with remarkably low point cost.

In fact currently I think the vehicle is almost dangerously undercosted. It's only downsides are smallish ammo load (34 rounds) and just a little bit longer loading time than the German 88L/71 gun has. But then on the other hand the 100mm shot has excellent stopping power. One hit is almost always enough to annihilate the target. That's a very nice feature compared to the relatively ineffective "needle puncturing effect" which is characteristic for SU-100's German counterpart Panzer IV/70's 75L/70 gun. Seems very odd to me that the latter one is more expensive of the two.

Also based on couple of games and some tests it seems that the much talked optics bonus for the German tanks is actually very marginal. At one kilometer range veteran Nashorns repeatedly lost shootouts against regular SU-100s, for example.

Ari

[Engel]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

At one kilometer range veteran Nashorns repeatedly lost shootouts against regular SU-100s,

From what I've read, the German guns were often accurate up to three kilometres (whether they had any penetrating power left at that point is another issue), so the range scale in CM doesn't do them enough justice in this respect.

[Soddball]

I've run some tests at between 1.5 and 3km. Nashorns aren't especially accurate, although they are more accurate than SU-100s. However, the Nashorn, equipped with kitchen foil rather than armour, has to be almost unbelievably lucky to survive a duel against SU-100s.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I've run some tests at between 1.5 and 3km. Nashorns aren't especially accurate, although they are more accurate than SU-100s. However, the Nashorn, equipped with kitchen foil rather than armour, has to be almost unbelievably lucky to survive a duel against SU-100s.

One could always bring in something really nasty for long range, like Jagdpanther

Cheers,

M.S.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

One could always bring in something really nasty for long range, like Jagdpanther

I would say that the SU-100 is roughly equivalent to the Jagdpanther. But for some reason there's an enormous difference in the point costs. Even the Panzer IV/70 is more expensive than the SU-100 although it has considerably worse mobility and weaker gun. It seems like the tactical mobility has been somewhat neglected when the point costs were calculated.

Ari

[Silvio Manuel]

I would think that the Panzer IV/70's armor is the main reason, isn't it panther-esque 80mm@55 deg.? What is the SU-100's? Does it have an MG? That should be a bit offset by the SU-100's speed/mobility/ground pressure/HP per ton/accel.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

I would think that the Panzer IV/70's armor is the main reason, isn't it panther-esque 80mm@55 deg.? What is the SU-100's? Does it have an MG?

SU-100's frontal armor:

UH: 75/50

LH: 45/55

IV/70(A)'s:

SSTR: 80/curved

UH: 80/10

LH: 80/14

Both have 90% quality armor.

The IV/70 has mysteriously lost it's MG although it had one in CMBO, so neither one have a MG, but the IV/70 has the nahverteidigungswaffe.

It must be pointed out that I'm making the comparison to the A-model of Panzer IV/70 which costs only one point more than the SU-100 (149 points against 148, both regulars). The V-model with better armor costs 164 points as regular.

Ari

[Silvio Manuel]

Ari,

First of all I'm assuming that the prices are w/ rarity off. That said, it seems like either the SU-100 should be more exp. or the J-Panther cheaper; they seem equivalent. J-P gets the very long range optics, the only tank so blessed. It sure doesn't like like the PzIV/70-A matches up to the superior SU-100. Maybe ROF is a big factor?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Things the SU-100 has over the PzIV/70 (A):

</font>

• Mobility</font>
• Armor</font>
• Anti-personnel capability</font>
• Cupola
  </font>

Things the PzIV/70 (A) has over the SU-100:

</font>

• ROF</font>
• Silhouette</font>
• Accuracy</font>
• Ammo load</font>
• Nahverwafflethingy
  </font>

Armor penetration is about equal, although the SU-100 would be more likely to kill what it hit.

I suspect the ammo load is a big factor. In a QB that would make the PzIV/70 overpriced because it is doubtful you would use 60 rounds, but it may be important in an operation. Generally speaking, tanks with high ammo loads are overpriced in CM for QBs because you almost never use all the ammo, or even most of it.

[NewSocialistMan]

I would think that the ROF is not as serious an issue either if you are using S-n-S tactics quite a bit.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I've run some tests at between 1.5 and 3km. Nashorns aren't especially accurate, although they are more accurate than SU-100s. However, the Nashorn, equipped with kitchen foil rather than armour, has to be almost unbelievably lucky to survive a duel against SU-100s.

Yep, the Nashorn can't take hits. In RL it was equipped to win it's duels by hitting first. And I naturally thought that "long-range optics" in CMBB would mean considerably better chances to hit distant enemies than they can hit back. Well I was wrong. Basing on the LOS tool's information and actual game experience the advantage from 'advanced optics' is in 0 - 5% marginal. And then there are the potential negative effects on short ranges...

In my current game three separate regular SU-100s achieved three first shot hits on hull down targets from 1000 meters whereas a veteran Nashorn needed six shots to hit an immobilized SU-100 on the side armor from 1100 meters. The new optics model doesn't change much from the days of CMBO.

Ari

[Ari Maenpaa]

Silvio, Vanir B,

Vanir's summary is very good, thanks. But one thing I would like to point out is that the SU-100 offers thick armor, strong firepower and great mobility in one extremely balanced and cheap package whereas the Pz IV/70 clearly lacks in mobility. If the Axis player wants such a great-in-everything vehicle he must pay at least 233 points for a Panther and the Jagdpanther costs huge 250 points.

Ari