Is the T-34's gun really under modeled in the game??

[Tero]

By Der Alte Fritz

Why exclude 1944 production because the war ended in 1945?

The cut off for all the data seems to be the Kursk battles.

And the total production of 45mm is 56,742 not 79,000.

So take production from 1941 up to and including 1944.

45mm total 57,742

57mm total 4,746

which equates to 57mm numbers being 7.6% of the total number of AT guns (45+57mm).

Sorry. I did the math off the cuff and wrote the first number down wrong.

Model 37 45 899 + 14 100 made prior to June 1941 + Model 42 10 843 = 70 842 and indeed not 79 000.

Substitute 57 742 with 68 778 (to count in the in service June 1941 pieces) and the ratio is 6,4%

Deduct the 39/40 production from the in service June 1941 number and the total number comes down to 66 508 and the 45/57 ratio goes up to 7,1%.

EDIT: just realized the 45mm M-32 production is not readily evident from the numbers given.

[dieseltaylor]

Tank Corps 1942 - 1945

April 1942: 40 x T-60, 40 x T-34, 20 x KV-1, 42 x 82mm Mortars, 4 x 120mm Mortars,

12 x 45mm ATG, 20 x 37mm AA, 20 x 76mm Guns

January 1943: 70 x T-70, 98 x T-34, 48 x 82mm Mortars, 4 x 120mm Mortars,

12 x 45mm ATG, 2 x 37mm AA, 24 x 76mm Guns, 8 x BM-13 Katyusha

January 1944: 208 x T-34, 1 x KV-1, 21 x SU-76, 16 x SU-85, 12 x SU-152/ISU-152,

52 x 82mm Mortars, 42 x 120mm Mortars, 12 x 45mm ATG,

16 x 57mm ATG, 18 x 37mm AA, 12 x 76mm Guns, 8 x BM-13 Katyusha

May 1945: 207 x T-34, 21 x SU-76, 21 x SU-85, 21 x SU-152/ISU-152

52 x 82mm Mortars, 42 x 120mm Mortars, 12 x 45mm ATG,

16 x 57mm ATG, 16 x 37mm AA, 36 x 76mm Guns, 8 x BM-13 Katyusha

"Red Army Handbook 1939-1945" by Steven J. Zaloga and Leland S. Ness

Note that the 57mm ATG is more common than the 45mm ATG post January 1944

Looking at March 1944 figures from CMBB the rarity factor for the 45 is 0% and the 57mm is 65%. In point terms the 45mm costs 35 and the 57mm is 133points. My assumption is that up the pointy end of battles you have your best kit and the obsolescent kit is kept just in case.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here are some penetration curves: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/290/123/lang,en/

The F34 76.2 mm (yellow line) is barely penetrating the Tiger's side at 200 m, and that's at 90 degrees and not accounting for ammo quality (probably for 75% of shell fragments behind armor though). I'm still not convinced the Soviet tanks are undermodeled. The Soviets realized after Kursk 76.2 was inadequate, that's why the SU-85 was rushed to production. They did tests on a captured Tiger and 85 mm penetrated frontal armor at 1000 m. They also studied Kursk data and decided the 122 mm gun was the most effective, and put that into IS2. CM models all that accurately.

As far as IS2 being knocked out by shorter guns,

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.

http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/32/50/lang,en/

[JasonC]

DT - 45mm were used to the end of the war in the rifle divisions, but yes the mobile arms had plenty of better guns by the start of 1944.

Wrath on early IS-2s - remember the main production model IS-2 is significantly uparmored after the spring of 1944. Nobody pretends all StuGs are 50mm front.

Wrath on pen numbers - Russian figures not comparable to western ones, they need to be easily 5% higher. 82mm is not 30+50, Tiger armor quality is not plain vanilla panzers armor quality (3-4 times the cost per vehicle etc). BR-350A isn't BR-350B isn't BR-350P. Also their own tests have 85mm penetrating Tiger fronts at 1000m from the time they appear, but in CMBB 1943 85mm routinely fails against 30+50, let along Tiger front, at 600 meters. Which is nonsense.

DAF on tactics - I don't actually have any difficulty implementing realistic Russian stripping tactics on defense, using rifle type forces. Sure the molotovs are weak and annoying, but it is all other infantry AT that is overmodeled mostly, and there are sufficient workarounds. In anything like realistically open steppe terrain and with adequate field fortifications (trenches), I find Russian rifle defenses work as their tactics intended, in CMBB.

There are only a few adaptations needed if a German opponent goes all cherry picker on you in QBs, that is all. In reasonable scenarios, where a significant portion of the German fighting power is vulnerable to 76mm from the front and at range, there is really no great problem. But I'll give details and the adaptations needed to deal with gamey German cherry pickers. Basically you have to go cherry-ish yourself in retaliation, but it isn't hard.

A typical Russian rifle force should just spend a company's worth on AT enchancements for its infantry forces and co-located those with the main body of the defense. Here is a sample buying list

pioneer company - 187

3 ampulets - 54

3 tank hunters - 33

1 vet sniper - 24

2 50 cal HMG - 42

340 points

the pioneers form 3 groups of 2 squads each, separate the squads within each subgroup 50 meters. That creates a 100m wide zone for thrown demo charges.

the tank hunters will typically get 2 with the useful RPGs, each with 45m range and excellent hit and kill chances. With the previous this makes 5 areas about 100m diameter each dangerous to tanks.

ampulets go one each in main infantry fighting positions. They are dangerous to German tanks out of 250 meters and will penetrate 50mm plates. They need side shots at StuGs and generally won't hurt Tigers.

the 50 cals should be spread wide apart with LOS facing inward. They can trash SPWs much more rapidly than ATRs and are useful against infantry as well. (I am assuming you have a flock of ATRs anyway, e.g. from battalion purchase or similar). At close range they will KO plain panzers on flat side shots, even, but rapid SPW killing is their main job.

the sniper caps TCs and after the first will likely keep the Germans religiously buttoned, which makes it much easier for guns to get multiple shots, MGs to avoid spots, etc.

The normal infantry defense strips the German infantry using stealthy heavy weapons, especially Maxim MMGs and 82mm mortars firing from defilade. 50mm work too, and 76mm and 120mm FOs, which are responsive enough and hit hard enough against infantry out of cover.

The ordinary infantry can stay low in trenches while this is going on. It only needs to "rise" (come off hide, lengthen arcs) if German infantry approaches within 200 meters or so, and then only fires into open steppe. Where others might avoid shooting with infantry because under tank observation, Russians entrenched can just go ahead and do it. The German infantry gets licked, the German armor doesn't have the ammo depth (with losses taken etc) to shoot your entire force out of trenches singlehanded.

The gun portion of the defense should be based on 76mm ZIS-3s, 37mm AA guns, and against cherry pickers, 57mm ATGs. 76s are on the flanks facing inward, the other types can be central. 37mm will rapidly hole plain panzers if they see a flank, and can wreck even Tigers with track and gun hits. Naturally 57mm are the weapon of choice against those, and StuGs frontally, etc.

If your opponent ever takes a Tiger, I mean once, insist on rariety off for all future games. This makes the better gun counters affordable.

Other useful gamey items as the 76mm mountain gun for HE chucking (better AT performance than the 45mm ATG, twice the HE ammo load of a ZIS-3 for 2/3rds the cost), high caliber FOs taken low quality and used in map fire fashion (300mm rockets, 122mm guns are my favorites), and the occasional Sturmovik.

Don't give him lots of expensive AFVs to chew on with his uberarmor, by twice as many guns instead.

Take trenches and a few TRPs for the high caliber guns, if you don't want to map fire them (122mm guns e.g., you don't need them for 300mm rockets obviously).

None of that bothers me. I only find the overmodeling of German armor vs. Russian 76mm a pain when the Germans are on defense with cherry picked uber-armor. The reason it is a pain is it forces the Russian player to drop the historical accurate and fun T-34 based tactics. Instead he has to fiddle with a zoo of LL items and rarer SUs, airpower and the like, to get anywhere. It isn't history. Flank and close in T-34s by whole platoons simply sucks in comparison, the overmodeling issues are too steep, when full tank prices are being lost on every German AFV trigger-pull.

1944, no problem, especially after April. The Russians have the full bag of tricks and can take care of themselves. 1942, no problem if the Germans stick to Panzer IIIs and Marders, annoying but possible if they overuse StuGs. I still find it isn't worth using T-34 flank and close tactics in that case. Yes they can work, but it is easier to just be gamey and bring 37mm AA and T-34/57s and Valentine IXs and Sturmoviks, and have done with it.

1943 vs. the Tiger cherry picker in defense or in an ME, or those and StuGs both, are the place it sucks hardest. The realistic counters like SU-85s in the second half of the year, are neuters. Flank and close doesn't work vs. Tigers, they have turrets and it takes 6-8 penetrations at point blank to actually kill one. I've tested and the odds of winning with a perfectly place T-34 vs Tiger I it has caught flat-footed at 100 meters from 90 degrees off the side, is only about 1 in 6. Low behind armor effect and only having 2 clean shots before it fixes the facing, are the issue.

Even Sturms aren't a solution against Tigers. It is 57mm ATGs or SU-152s or both. The SUs have issues with cower and absurd ROF (I personally can and have fired guns exactly like that twice that fast, inside SP, and I'm nothing special at it). Or my favorite solution - lay down my rules and if he won't use Panzer IVs in 1943, get a new opponent.

It is so much more fun and interesting when the Germans have realistic tanks in 1942 and 1943. T-34 platoons are actually dangerous and constitute the backbone of the Russians' offensive power. Which is historical. My own scenarios are full of Pz IV long vs. T-34 match ups, with the Germans occasionally getting something uber but very rarely across all scenarios. That means the Russians have to worry about what is out there but get to use their real tactics almost all the time.

FWIW.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Dieseltaylor

Look at page 81 and 86 to see note about adding 85mm At Bn to organisation.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The fact that some Stugs were knocked out by T34's really doesn't say much. You'd have to know what percentage were knocked out relative to total number of hits, and then compare to the probability in CM, then it could be proven if CM is right or wrong. I don't think it was coincidental that Germans kept using 80mm armor, they must've thought it was pretty good protection against the 76.2 mm. Also the probability of having B ammo may be modeled by the overall probability of knock out and ammo quality. I'm not even sure any small discrepancy would be that important, the Stug had a huge advantage on defense and was quite vulnerable on offense, which is what CM models. I think the problem is the unrealistic nature of being able to buy equipment, a lot of people want tank battles where in reality most tanks were killed by ATG's. So I agree putting some restrictions on the equipment makes sense to make up for the ahistorical nature of these battles and make it more sporting.

[JasonC]

When German training documents say outright, below 500m the front armor of the assault gun provided no protection from Russian tank guns, it isn't a matter of counting anything.

If being impenetrable from the front beyond 500m while penetrating the enemy out to 1500m, while also having low profile, better optics, higher hit chance at range from higher muzzle velocity, etc --- all for the same price or less --- aren't sufficient advantages for you, then you suck.

[dieseltaylor]

WoD

Seemed an interesting circular logic. They kept at 80mm because it worked .... why not 100mm it would have worked even better : )

I think the answer is weight. Later IV Stug variants suffered greatly from being front heavy I believe. It does not matter if your overall psi is 14lb if the track pressure at the front is 25lb then you will sink in sooner.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I just don't understand why it would say that, Russian testing shows it not penetrating at 500 m at 90 degrees, and from the posted picture most of the armor is heavily sloped.

[JasonC]

Sigh - that is a purely theoretical calculated form.

look at the M4A2 line. See any difference?

Check the muzzle energies of the two guns, 76L42 and 75L38.

See any *round type* listing for the Russian 76 line?

Western reports, Russian reports. Capped, not capped.

The Germans knew how close they were protected in a StuG. And the answer in their own documents is, "500 meters".

Any straw will be grasped at rather than get in a bleeding Panzer IV! It is absurd.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, I noticed M4A2 line doesn't seem to make any sense. It shows it as better than British 57 mm. May be they used tungsten for that one?

[Wrath of Dagon]

In fact on the original of that chart M4A2 line is the only one which lists the shell type, although I can't make out what it is, so it's probably a special one.

Edit: Also, the 75mm line and the 57mm British might be swapped on the new chart.

[Stalins Organ]

With the hostilities ceasing in May the 57mm production (which would not reach troops in time to be used) for 1945 is, say, 2 500 and 45/M42 1 000 pieces.

I don't think you can simply halve the figures - the production numbers for many of hte gun types listed are already less in 1945 than in 1944, which probably represents either taking a shorter period into account (ie it only accounts for production to the end of the war), or that production rapidly tailed off at the end of the war.

[JasonC]

No, it makes perfect sense, the round is APCBC - capped AP with the same muzzle energy as the Russian 76mm. Which routinely did hole Tigers from the side in the west.

[Stalins Organ]

Tank Corps 1942 - 1945

<snip>

Note that the 57mm ATG is more common than the 45mm ATG post January 1944

Yeah but that's Tank Corps - how many of them were there? 10? 20?

viz 400 rifle divisions still with 45's..???

Fact is that "rare" troops such as Tigers and Soviet 57mm AT guns were common in some formations, and completely missing in others - and "others" were the majority of formations.

Games invariably allow players to cherry pick either equipment or units - I remember well a figure-game competition 25 years ago where the winner turned up with 7 Tiger I's and about a platoon of infantry....

there are attempts to reduce this - rarity is one, the successorr to the figure gaming rules above doubled the cost of every heavy tank unless there was a corresponding medium fielded, and I'm sure we could all think of or invent others.

none work really well - often because at he scale we play they just don't apply - eg in a small game a single platoon or section of tigers might well operate without associated mediums, and the T34/85 that KO-ed a couple of Tiger II's 1st time the Russians saw them didn't see any mediums or even any infantry nearby......

Unless you are playing scenarios I don't see an easy way out of it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, it makes perfect sense, the round is APCBC - capped AP with the same muzzle energy as the Russian 76mm. Which routinely did hole Tigers from the side in the west.

Then according to that chart, 75mm Sherman with APCBC had 80% chance of penetrating Tiger's front armor at 400 m.

[Stalins Organ]

Sounds fair - this chart gives it 100mm penetration at 500m 30 deg slope with an "M61" APCBC - but only 75.3 at same range and slope with another APCBC with no designation.

The Wiki page for the British OQF 75mm (a rebored 6 pdr with new breech) notes that it has a poor AP round, used the US M61 round, but then had a higher velocity APCBC round that matches the figures above.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That chart seems to show that APC M61 and APCBC M61 are different rounds, but most references seem to indicate they're the same round. Which is the case really?

Edit: Actually on the Russian chart, it kind of looks like the shell is M72, but I can't be sure.

[Stalins Organ]

My understanding is that the M61 APC and the M61 APCBC are the same round using US and British nomenclature respectively - the US doesn't mention the ballistic cap in their abbreviation.

[Tero]

My understanding is that the M61 APC and the M61 APCBC are the same round using US and British nomenclature respectively - the US doesn't mention the ballistic cap in their abbreviation.

Came across a single remark which said that the British removed the HE filler from their US ordnance AP shots. Any corraboration to that ?

[John Kettler]

Tero,

I've read the same thing, and the issue's been discussed on the Forums, too, but Search seems to be on acid tonight, returning incomprehensible results. The gist of it goes something like this. The British, who'd always used AP shot to kill tanks, didn't trust fuzes in the American supplied M61 APC/APCBC to work, despite having been massacred by the much smaller German 5cm PzGr 39 in the Western Desert and even the tiny AP shell fired by the Pak 36. They therefore removed the fuze, steamed out the burster charge, replaced the volume with concrete, and replaced the fuze with a machined steel plug. Here's what the projectile looks like before such mods. The result was an AP shot with tracer which penetrated a little better than the M61 APC by virtue of higher KE, the solid steel plug and concrete supplying the mass differential. ISTR the penetration improvement was something like 3%. Not much, but everything helps when fighting thickly armored Panzers!

http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa5/75mm/index.htm

Found it at Guns vs. Armour

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/britain.html#Explosive_Filler_in_Armour_Piercing_Projectiles

Relevant passage follows (Fair use)

"No British AP or APCBC projectiles had an explosive filler in the warhead. Even when the British used USA projectiles for the 75mm gun, such as the M61, they removed the HE filler. In the Churchill Service Instruction Book, it is described as M61 Shot, with the diagram showing that the fuse found in the USA projectile was replaced by a plug holding only the tracer.

The words “shot” and “shell” have two distinct meanings in English and are often used loosely which can result in some confusion. “Shot” is a contraction of roundshot and harks back to the early days of artillery; it implies a solid projectile with no internal cavity. “Shell” on the other hand is used to describe a projectile with an internal cavity, which may be used to contain HE, smoke, shrapnel, etc."

This issue is also covered in TOW thread Moon started. See particularly Kamui's post.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/archive/index.php/t-80936.html

Everyone,

I've got a terminal effectiveness bombshell for you on APHE versus German spaced armor, results so shocking the firing trial results were never sent to the troops. U.S. Test No. 1. Note that in this trial both the standard M61 APC shell and the M61 shot were fired, the latter being the British plugged model. The 17 pdr and U.S. 90 mm were also fired. The chart shows a velocity difference between the standard American M61 APC and the British M61 as about 100 fps.

http://wargaming.info/armour05.htm

(Fair Use)

ETOUSA OUTGOING MESSAGE

ORIGINATOR: ETOUSA.

DATE: 24 May 1944.

ACTION TO: AGWAR.

INFO TO: CG AGF.

TEXT: Recent firing tests indicate twenty mm homo plate spaced six inches from fifty mm FH plate at thirty degree obliquity will defeat service velocity seventy-five mm APC M sixty-one at five hundred yards by functioning base fuze.

(signed Eisenhower)

Also tests witnessed indicated instantaneous functioning of HE filling in ninety mm APC M eighty-two does not permit satisfactory armor penetration performance on one hundred mm homo plate at thirty degrees at five hundred yards.

(Reference ETOUSA cable WL dash two one nine two and British ordnance board proceding number two six five nine four)

If tests in US indicate above deficiencies cannot be corrected immediately it is requested all seventy-five mm seventy-six mm and ninety mm APC shipped for ETO be inert loaded.

DISTRIBUTION: Ord O, G-3, G-4, FUSAG, SHAEF.

ORIGINATING DIVISION: AFV&W Section.

PRECEDENCE: Routine.

NAME & RANK: W. J. Reardon, Col, Cav, 1039.

How's that grab you? The Germans went to spaced face hardened armor to break up AP shot, but it turns out to wreak havoc on APHE fuzing, too.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

Nice going JK - thats really good digging.

SO - re 400 infantry divisions with 45's. I understand that but my contention would be that out of those 400 divisions how many are actually active? I have not looked at the dispositions of number of Russian units but my thoughts are:

Nobody has actually quantified out of the enormous number of 45's manufactured how many tens of thousands were lost to the Germans in the early war.

To that we could add the presumption that 45's would be the stock weapon for the troops on the Japanese border. Facing the Finn's would you feel the need to send your 57mm's or would you put them to active fronts against the better armour?

Not important points but compared to just looking at total production numbers definitely more refined. Infact working backwards if we know what the manifest of ATG's is for each division/force it would give a reasonable idea of how many were in issue.

[Der Alte Fritz]

The standard weapon of the Rifle Division was the 45mm until the end of the war but remember that they were reinforced when at a critical point by Army level AT units. For the 57mm these were:

08/586.......20 guns...... 2 units by Jan 44

08/530.......20 guns (57/45 mixed) ...........37 units by Jan 44

08/595.......24 guns.................13 units by 44

So that makes about 750 odd guns by Jan 44 in AT units and say 500 more in AT gun units in Tank/Mech Corps. Total of 1250 out of 1850 guns produced by Jan 44.

[JasonC]

Um, the Germans didn't *have* spaced armor with 20mm 6 inches from 50mm. They had bolted on armor with 20mm or 30mm plates in direct contact with 50mm main plates --- which resist *less* that uniform plates, which is why the Germans replaced 30+30 with uniform 50 and 30+50 with uniform 80 whenever possible, always by the next model number after deciding that uparmoring was necessary. They weren't bolting on plates because they thought it was better than uniform plate, because it isn't.

The only plates spaced at stand off distance from the underlying armor were skirts, and those were only 5 mm thick, and they were only used over 30mm armor (or 40mm for Panther sides). None of which ever had a chance of stopping 76mm AP or US 75mm AP. They were meant to stop ATR rounds and 76mm *HE*.

Sigh. Nobody cares about a fact if it can be spun into a less vulnerable German tank... Half the world will turn over every rock in existence to just get a smidgeon of half-believable spin for a 3% edge to the same in one matchup in a hundred. Why do you suppose that is?

[JasonC]

OK, the late IIIs had 20mm a couple of inches - not 6 - away from the main armor, on the gun mantlet. That is as spaced as it got...