What would you expect from this ambush?

[lcm1947]

I haven't received the game yet so no experience with how realistic it is or not but after reading this thread thought I'd perform a test in CMBB just to see. The PZIVC's actually fared a lot worst then the IIIJ's did. I tried starting the test with all T34's head on to the German tanks and then all exposing thier sides and then lastly their rears. The III's won the battles overall except when the 34's were head to head. Then a different story but notice that even then there were knocked out 34's so the III's could kill a 34 at 50 to 70 meters head on - at least in CMBB.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Rak:

[QB] I wouldn't call that an ambush. It's like saying "Hey, I massed these poor tanks in this little town! Encircle and destroy them!"

Ah, yes. Well, the enemy tanks are AI controlled, meaning they'll be driving on a straight line through the town. So it is an ambush for moronic enemies. Works fairly well. Now, had the "AI" had any "I" in it, things would be different indeed.

[stic.man]

SirReal, if you were controlling the Russians, faced with the same counterattack maneuver, how would you proceed?

[Hassen]

Originally posted by SirReal:

On Veteran difficulty. The russians are attacking from the top left. As positioned, those five tanks (all PzIVC or PzIII) are hidden until the russian tanks (BT-7 and T34/41) drive past them at extremely close ranges (<50m), showing their flanks and rears.

I would have expected a lot of dead russian tanks, with little or no losses. What would you expect?

I did the same setup on realistic... Or the hardest one there is... idk Did you have you tanks on hold fire/hold position? cause you have to let the T-34 come really close before engaging... when i did this last time i had 2 Pz III and 2 Pz IV and one smaller Pz cant remember but i lost the small one and my two Pz III's were immobilized but still could deliver AP fire and thus made easy work of the T-34 and idk when the B-7s got killed man... i think the two AT guns i confiscated from the dirty russkies took em out that Zis is a effin wreker. But yeah so i did it with only 1 tank actually lost and a couple crew dead in one of the III's.

Well. In this game, it turns out, the standard outcome is five dead german panzers for maybe one BT-7 and one T34 (if you're lucky).

Yes. Realistic indeed.

[Destraex]

Russians in ww2 never ever rushed or charged with no regard for the life of their men..... rather they were so methodical and cautious as to scout thoroughly before moving.... lol

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by rune:

Hmmm.. but Sir Real's findings bring up a question I don't know the answer to. I know shatter gap was to AP rounds... but can a heat round shatter? I'll follow up to some people I know, but does anyone here know?

Rune

shatter gap in praxi isnt a problem with shaped charge ammunitions (but see commetn below).

what can and did happen with highly sloped angles such as on the T-34 is that due to the design of the shaped charge warhead/fuze in question it may fail to detonate/vounce off. The Faustpatrone had a known nasty habit to do so re. the T-34.

Originally posted by rune:

Ok Heard back from John. A Heat round would not shatter. If the fuze failed, or the shell hit at an extreme angle, the thin wall of the shell would crush, but shatter is a specific definition which would not occur.

Rune

shatter gap as defined with a degradation of AP performance due to overpowered projectile energy/speed w/r/t projectile quality is siomething that, in theory, might also be experienced by shaped charges.

Namely, if the shaped charge projectile has such a tremendous speed due to cliose range that the shaped charge detonates a bit late which is disadvatageous to the forming/focussing of the plasma jet. IOW, the whole thing gets squashed against the armor plate before the shaped charge had a chance to develop, making it no more effective than a simple HE charge in the most extreme case.

The most important improvement re. the AP performance of shaped charge projectiles was forming the charge and especially refining the cone/detonator so that you reach optimum set-off distance for the jet to focus on the armor.

if the projectile is too slow or simply detonates too early the jet will have unfocussed / the energy spent into air too much before affecting the target armor - but the reverse can also be true - if the shaped charge travels too fast/detonates too late the jet cannot properly develop before hitting the armor. Think of the original blunt hollow charges fired at the speed of a modern 120mm round.

However the latter, all above about a "shatter gap of shaped charges", is really only a problem in theory, not in praxi, since the shaped charges detonate rather fast. the reverse problem of detonating too early and therefore spending itself is a much bigger practical aspect - see spaced armor.

[ShiftZ]

On 26 May 1942 the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres distributed the following "Instructions to units on the Eastern Front for Combating the Russian T-34 Tank with our Panzers" (cited from T.Jentz "Panzertruppen"):

"Characteristics of the T34.

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.

Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armor-piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams. The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)

Russian Tank Tactics.

In defense and covering a retreat, the T-34 with the turret at six o'clock is often dug in on a commanding height along a road or on the edge of woods or villages. Then after surprisingly opening fire from ambush, the T-34 can be driven out of the concealed position still under cover.

In correctly recognizing his technical superiority in weapons, the T-34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 metres. Because the T-34 is faster than the German Panzers, he can choose the range for a firefight.

Our Panzer Tactics.

Because the 5 cm KwK can only be expected to penetrate the flanks of the T34 at short range, the following tactics have proven been to be correct in combating them:

a. Attract and tie down the opponent frontally by having a Pz.Kpfw.III take up the firefight. Choose a hull down position or drive in a zig-zag course to make it difficult for the opponent to hit the target.

b. At the same time, utilizing all available cover, two other Pz.Kpfw.llls attempt to circumvent the T34 to the right or left in order to gain a position in the flank or in the rear and knock him out at short range with PzGr40 fired at the hull or rear.

c. If a Pz.Kpfw.lV is available among our own Panzers, it is to be employed in front of the opponent. The use of Nebelgranaten (smoke shells) can blind the T-34 or aid the other Panzers in closing in. It is also possible that the opponent will think that the smoke is poison gas and break off the action.

When encountering numerically superior enemy tanks (T-34 and KV), success has always resulted when our Panzer unit builds a fire front and overwhelms the enemy with fire. Even when no penetrations can be achieved, the enemy, impressed by the accuracy and rate of fire of the German Panzers, almost always breaks off the action.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by SirReal:

On Veteran difficulty. The russians are attacking from the top left. As positioned, those five tanks (all PzIVC or PzIII) are hidden until the russian tanks (BT-7 and T34/41) drive past them at extremely close ranges (<50m), showing their flanks and rears.

I would have expected a lot of dead russian tanks, with little or no losses. What would you expect?

the early T-34 is one of those tanks where the basic rule of going for the side and rear doesnt really work out.

closing in might help but in the case of the Pz. IV Ausf. C with its L24 low-velocity stub gun its a gambe I wouldnt take, since any return fire of the powerful 76mm will do in the thin Pz IV for good.

seeing that you dont really have any reasonable chance for a kill in the first place in this case you might also want to try to go for long range shots to take advantage of the higher precision of the german tanks, trying to achieve damaging hits on the T-34 before he zeroes in on you.

whether or not that is modeled / possible with ToW I dont know.

even then, the Pz IV Ausf. C simply wasnt meant to be duking it out with enemy armor, much less the T-34. The result that the T-34 wins hands down is not strange at all.

Well. In this game, it turns out, the standard outcome is five dead german panzers for maybe one BT-7 and one T34 (if you're lucky).

Yes. Realistic indeed.

"standard" based on how many samples, and using how many different attempts at playing this setup?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ShiftZ:

The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)

seems the latter refers to the already mentioned shaped-charge Granate 38 or Gr. 38 Hl/A fired by the L24 guns.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

try to go for long range shots to take advantage of the higher precision of the german tanks, trying to achieve damaging hits on the T-34 before he zeroes in on you.

whether or not that is modeled / possible with ToW I dont know.

As far as I can tell, accuracy isn't modeled; T34, BT-7, PzIII, PzIV, StuG are all pretty much the same. What really makes a difference is the crew skill set - which in turn is set by the scenario designer to make a challenging mission given a piss-poor AI.

[ShiftZ]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

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

The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)

seems the latter refers to the already mentioned shaped-charge Granate 38 or Gr. 38 Hl/A fired by the L24 guns. </font>

[SoaN]

Originally posted by SirReal:

As far as I can tell, accuracy isn't modeled; T34, BT-7, PzIII, PzIV, StuG are all pretty much the same.

What do you mean by saying that???

Could you please make it more clear for my future clarifying this issue.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by SoaN:

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

As far as I can tell, accuracy isn't modeled; T34, BT-7, PzIII, PzIV, StuG are all pretty much the same.

What do you mean by saying that???

Could you please make it more clear for my future clarifying this issue. </font>

[SoaN]

Originally posted by SirReal:

I don't have statistics for it, and measuring accuracy really calls for good statistics. That said, it seems like the russian tanks and guns are just as good as hitting targets with their first shot as german tanks are - something I believe isn't historically correct.

For example, in one of the first missions in the german campaign, you're tasked with securing a railway station. The russian defensive position is about 700-800m from a line of trees that run perpendicular to their line of fire. I decide to try and outflank their defense by driving at full speed behind those sparse trees to cover.

This meant I would show full flank to the two russian 45mm AT guns, with enough time for them to fire twice. I would expect those guns to miss most of their shots at that range against a moving target. They do not - they hit with most of their shots, usually even the first shot (which should by rights be a ranging shot at that distance).

I can assure you that it is not correct. Each weapon in the game has its one unique aiming parameters.

It will be clearer to understand after “Visibility and aiming” topic will be opened in Strategy and tactics forum.

As for 45mm AT they were made on the similar base as 37mm PAK 35/36. While creating 45mm AT Russians took a lot from German gun. But PAK was a bit better on higher distances. It is of course counted in TOW.

[SirReal]

Well, how much harder is it to hit a moving target than a stationary one, at 700m, given an initial velocity of 760m/s (which, of course, drops quickly) I'd say a flight time of about 1.5 to 2 seconds.

Given a target speed (which is really hard to estimate at that distance) of between 20 and 30 km/h, that means that the tank will move between 8 and 17 meters in that time. And a PzIV is only 6 meters long. So hitting it on the first shot would require a really skilled gunner. REALLY skilled.

[SoaN]

Originally posted by SirReal:

Well, how much harder is it to hit a moving target than a stationary one, at 700m, given an initial velocity of 760m/s (which, of course, drops quickly) I'd say a flight time of about 1.5 to 2 seconds.

Given a target speed (which is really hard to estimate at that distance) of between 20 and 30 km/h, that means that the tank will move between 8 and 17 meters in that time. And a PzIV is only 6 meters long. So hitting it on the first shot would require a really skilled gunner. REALLY skilled.

Here is a little experiment for you. Take any gun you like and give the command AREA FIRE for about 700meters away. Wait for about 5 shots and you will see aiming system in action. But don’t forget that gunner is aiming better with each shot he provides.

Such system works for AI also. It doesn’t have any lasers as I often hear here from forum members. It’s absolute nonsense if I can say so.

[rune]

Hof,

Thanks for the intersting read on the Shatter and the HEAT round. It is what I assumed, but glad to know I was correct.

Rune

[SirReal]

Originally posted by SoaN:

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

Well, how much harder is it to hit a moving target than a stationary one, at 700m, given an initial velocity of 760m/s (which, of course, drops quickly) I'd say a flight time of about 1.5 to 2 seconds.

Given a target speed (which is really hard to estimate at that distance) of between 20 and 30 km/h, that means that the tank will move between 8 and 17 meters in that time. And a PzIV is only 6 meters long. So hitting it on the first shot would require a really skilled gunner. REALLY skilled.

Here is a little experiment for you. Take any gun you like and give the command AREA FIRE for about 700meters away. Wait for about 5 shots and you will see aiming system in action. But don’t forget that gunner is aiming better with each shot he provides.

Such system works for AI also. It doesn’t have any lasers as I often hear here from forum members. It’s absolute nonsense if I can say so.

</font>

[SoaN]

Originally posted by SirReal:

Hitting a stationary, large piece of ground isn't the same as hitting a moving tank.

Unless the AI uses the same code for area fire as it does for direct fire, I don't see how this applies.

AI uses the same code for area fire – it aims in certain spot that you’ve told him to. So you can try to make such experiment as I’ve already told you.

[terra]

Although the PzIV ausf. C did have a 75mm gun, because of its extremely short barrel it had a very low muzzle velocity and therefor very low armour piercing value. During the early German campaign, they were only used against soft targets. The PzIII , with a longer barreled gun, was used against armour. Really I think neither the early Panzer IV nor Panzer III should be able to pierce the thick T-34 armour; hence the reason Germany designed the Panther and Tiger tanks.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by SoaN:

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

Hitting a stationary, large piece of ground isn't the same as hitting a moving tank.

Unless the AI uses the same code for area fire as it does for direct fire, I don't see how this applies.

AI uses the same code for area fire – it aims in certain spot that you’ve told him to. So you can try to make such experiment as I’ve already told you. </font>

[someone]

That's interesting. SoaN, could you clarify whether target movement factors into aiming accuracy.

[SoaN]

Originally posted by SirReal:

So the fact that the spot moves does not factor into your calculations? That explains a lot.

We don’t have preceding fire in game. Aiming is made on spot where enemy is present in the moment of shot. I hope that is clear.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by SoaN:

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

So the fact that the spot moves does not factor into your calculations? That explains a lot.

We don’t have preceding fire in game. Aiming is made on spot where enemy is present in the moment of shot. I hope that is clear. </font>

[Jippo]

Originally posted by SoaN:

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

So the fact that the spot moves does not factor into your calculations? That explains a lot.

We don’t have preceding fire in game. Aiming is made on spot where enemy is present in the moment of shot. I hope that is clear. </font>