2 quick questions re AI and tank production

[yapma]

1. i am regularly surprised by how good the AI is in this game. that said, i wish my troops would recognize the advantages of having a stone wall between them and the troops before sneaking away. isn't this problem relatively simply fixed, i.e., the AI recognizes the value of walls, and if so, will it be patched? watching my troops stupidly crawl away from the walls really detracts from the sense of realism that is so central to this game.

2. i think what little i thought i knew of russian tanks (admittedly, mostly from playing steel panthers) was wrong. however, i thought that the germans retooled their production of tanks in response to their surpise at the capabilities of the T-34. if the BFC modelling of russian tank weakness is correct (and i have no reason to believe that it isn't, other than that it conflicts with my aforesaid limited knowledge), why did the germans go through all the trouble of producing the panther when pz III and IV both seem more than a match for the T-34? Was the need for VASTLY superior tanks a manifestation of the superiority beliefs of the Nazi regime?

[MasterGoodale]

Bigger is always better.

[yapma]

well, if your factory is down for 2 months while being retooled, 6 months are wasted getting the kinks out of the new product, tankers have to be retrained, and the damn thing is so heavy that it keeps running out of gas and stripping out its transmission, then i am not so sure.

not to say this is what happened, but i dont think new and bigger is necessarily better.

[MasterGoodale]

LOL

[Frunze]

The T-34's armor slope was better designed than anything the Germans had up to that point. As late as the Tiger, the Germans were designing tanks with straight vertical sides. The Panther incorporated the T-34s better design in this respect.

As you say, Panzer IIIs and IVs can handle early T-34s, which is why the Germans continued using 'em for some time. But try the T-34/85 - Panzer IIIs and IVs are toast to it.

[Bastables]

Cost for the PIV was 103,462 RM the Panther cost 117,100 RM 1,June 1944. Interestingly enough, the KwK 42 [Panther gun] cost 12,000 RM and therefore was actually *cheaper* than the [PIV gun] KwK 40 L/43 with 12,500 RM and the KwK 40 L/48 with 13,500 RM.

PIII ausf J 22 Metric tons 96,100 RM

PIII ausf M 23 Metric tons 103,163 RM

StuG ausf G 24 Metric tons 82,500 RM

On the question of reliability, covered well by a report dealing with the period 6 March to 15 April 1944 PV of the I.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2 in Russia:

"MayBach HL 230 P30 Motors: In general, the newer motors have a significantly longer life span than the first series. The longest distance achieved by a motor is 1700 to 1800 km.

Transmission: The transmission also achieves an increased lifespan. However in several cases the 3rd gear failed at about 1500 km so a new transmission needs to be installed. This damage may be caused by overtaxing the 3rd gear during the muddy period, three Panthers with damaged 3rd gears remained in action and still succeeded in travelling an additional 250 km. The longest distance driven without transmission failure is 1500 to 1800 km.

Tracks and Suspension: At about 1500 to 1800 kms the tracks are very heavily worn.

Final drives: A very large percent of Panthers broke down through damage to final drives."

Final drives were a weak point in all late war German vehs. Lets take a look at excerpts from the minutes from a meeting of the Panzer Commission 23 Jan 1945 Berlin:

"9.Final Drives

From the front there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive break downs in all veh types. Approximately 200 breakdowns have been reported with the 38(t) [Hetzer]. Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive [beginning from 1944] there have been 500 defective final drives in the PIV. From the Panther 370 and from the Tiger 100."

This is reflected in mirror operational rates of the PIV and the Panther in the PZ divs. If the Panther is considered unreliable then so is the PIV.

British ORS report sent from Italy to the War office 12 June 1944:

"16 Panthers examined between the Hitler line and Rome. Of these 7 knocked out by AP penetration. Detail: 4 through turret side, 1 hull side, and 2 rear hull. Holes aprox 3 inches and probably due to from 75mm from Sherman. One burnt out with some mechanical trouble and evidence of HE attack. Remaining 8 demolished and burnt out, no sign of battle damage nor mechanical trouble was found. Reliable evidence captured documents demolition ordered because of fuel shortage, our opinion, and no evidence of undue mechanical difficulties with Panther." ORS reports in Normandy note that the biggest killer of German Panthers was lack of fuel at 50% with AP pentrations second at 30%

All the above is cut and paste from older threads.

[yapma]

thanks for that info. especially interesting was the 50% attrition due to lack of gas.

but i guess my questions are simpler: do you feel the russian tanks really were as ineffective (not quite the right word) in the war as they are in the game? also, is the ai wall/infantry problem easily fixed?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by yapma:

thanks for that info. especially interesting was the 50% attrition due to lack of gas.

Panther had a larger road and cross-country range than the PIII and PIV. Lack of fuel had more to do with allied air interdiction, allied units cutting Panzer units off from supply compounded by the lack of stockpiled fuel in Normandy.

Panther 6 liters of fuel for 100km on paved roads

Sherman III 6 liters of fuel for 100km

Cromwell 9.5 liters of Fuel for 100km

T-34-85 4 liters of Fuel for 100km

The Panther was designed as the PIII replacement. This decision was made after the turret ring of the PIII proved too narrow to mount the KwK 40 7,5cm lang/long guns. The Germans were designing tanks for combat supremacy in view of the recognition that they could never compete on a numbers/production basis.

That said German estimates retold by Spielberger 'According to rough estimates the labour hour relation in comparison to the Panzer III stood at approximately 1 to 1.25 hrs i.e. 4 Panther for 5 Panzer III tanks to be built. Cost (without weaponry) PzKpfw III RM 96,100; Panther RM 117,100. (1993 Spielberger p23)

[ November 03, 2002, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by yapma:

thanks for that info. especially interesting was the 50% attrition due to lack of gas.

but i guess my questions are simpler: do you feel the russian tanks really were as ineffective (not quite the right word) in the war as they are in the game? also, is the ai wall/infantry problem easily fixed?

I think uneven crew quality and evenly balanced situations may make the game a little more lopsided than more "historical" encounters. Still, if you read any German unit history dealing with anti-tank or tank units, they tend to brag about the number of AFV kills they were able to rack up.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by yapma:

but i guess my questions are simpler: do you feel the russian tanks really were as ineffective (not quite the right word) in the war as they are in the game? also, is the ai wall/infantry problem easily fixed?

Compare the large losses suffered by Soviet tank units at Kursk when the main armament of Panzer formations was still the PIII and PIV.

"German total write offs do not exceed 300 including assault guns. During Zitadelle, the Orel and Belgorod-Kharkov total losses (Red Army) amounted to 6,064, according to Krivosheyev thus during the 50 days of fighting around Kursk the Red Army lost 121 Tanks and Assault guns, per day as write offs." (2000 Zetterling) Again this all has been posted/discussed before.

The above figures are thrown more sharply into relief when one considers that from 1-July 31-Aug the Germans lost 1,331 Tanks Assault guns with an additional 513 lost during the month of September on the entire Eastern front. While during the third quarter of 43 (Incl Kursk) 8,953 Red Army tanks and Assault guns were write offs

I don't think the wall/infantry thing is an easy fix, When it was brought up on the CMBO boards the BTS reply was a engine limitation in that the Tac AI cannot recognise "one way" cover as opposed to the 360deg cover afforded by buildings and tree/rock tiles.

Sorry: The Tac AI can’t recognise intervening cover only if it is actually in a cover object/tile. Of course things may have changed.

[ November 04, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[yapma]

thanks for the reply. both were very helpful bastables.

what would good search terms be so that i could review the prior posts?

[TSword]

As was stated by rexford, the performance of early (1941-1942) german AT-guns in CMBB is most probable to high. Foremost the 3.7 cm, 5 cm and the 7.5 cm /L24 (the short 75 in ealry Stugs and Pz4s).

There also is the known abstraction of relative turretsize which is fixed thus making certain tanktypes more suspect to turrethits (T-34/76, Pz4 and Pz3). Also it seems (from a rexford statement) that curved mantlets are to often hit in the "penetration zone" (One thinks of the T-34/65 and Panther for instance).

Greets

Daniel

[Joques]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Panther 6 liters of fuel for 100km on paved roads

Sherman III 6 liters of fuel for 100km

!!!???!!! That's better gas mileage than many modern cars!

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by yapma:

1. i am regularly surprised by how good the AI is in this game. that said, i wish my troops would recognize the advantages of having a stone wall between them and the troops before sneaking away. isn't this problem relatively simply fixed, i.e., the AI recognizes the value of walls, and if so, will it be patched? watching my troops stupidly crawl away from the walls really detracts from the sense of realism that is so central to this game.

Are these troops in foxholes? That should make a difference; troops that are in "open ground" behind walls will crawl away under fire, b/c "break LOS" isn't well-coded into the AI as a means of self-protection, going to cover is what the mid-turn TacAI thinks of.

So save the wall-tactic for defense where you have foxholes, and if at all possible, place your unit in non-open ground, as putting a foxhole there will give you better cover. OTOH, there isn't usually any decent non-open ground cover near a wall such that you're still close enough to the wall to get the benefit.

[Dar]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Panther 6 liters of fuel for 100km on paved roads

Sherman III 6 liters of fuel for 100km

Cromwell 9.5 liters of Fuel for 100km

T-34-85 4 liters of Fuel for 100km

Wait a minute--I find it really hard to believe the T-34/85 was capable of nearly 60 MPG!

I think we're talking closer to 0.6 MPG, or 4 liters per kilometer.

[Soddball]

Yes. Bastables is having a bad day with his decimal points.