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

[Michael Emrys]

The German 75 has 18% more velocity then the Russian 76.2 which should give it greater hitting power. But the armor penetration stats in the game give a greater edge than 18% to the German 75. Someone needs to explain the greater than expected advantage.

Kinetic energy is equal to projectile weight times the square of its velocity. So if the German shot is 18% faster, then all other things being equal (and I don't know how close to true that is), it should strike with almost 40% more energy. That's a significant edge.

Michael

[jaeger8888]

That's the info from the game itself. I've already factored in the V squared. The muzzle velocity is about 9% difference. The game stats give the T-34s 76.2 mm gun a penetration of 73mm at 500m. Which corresponds to Steve Zaloga's book on the T-34/76. Page 42 states the BR-350A APCBC round could penetrate 69 mm at 500m. The BR-350P APDS could go through 92mm at 500m. The latter round was introduced in 1943. Don't have a proportion of rounds carried or produced by the USSR. It also states that the explosive charge was rather small which could explain the low lethality on penetration.

As for the Tiger I or II not picking a fight with a JS-II, don't see it. From George Forty's book "German Tanks of World War Two" page 140.

Tiger I's L56/88mm gun could go through 148mm at 30 degree angle at 1500m against homogeneous armor. The JS-IIs armor on the hull is 120mm at 30 degree inclination. The Tiger IIs 88/71 was even more formidable.

Winner to whoever got in the first hit.

Don't see where Russian Vehicle performance is short changed.

Someone stated that you should never try to rush German tanks with mass charges, you'll just get shot up. That's historically accurate. The prochorovka tank engagement is an example. Fifth Guards Tank Army was badly mauled losing most of their vehicle strength at minimal cost to the 2nd SS panzer corps trying to close the range. And it wasn't even the Tigers doing it, but the PZ IV.

Read Healys and Zetterlings books on the subject. And two more books on the engagement are about to be published, one by a Russian author.

The best Allied tank in World War II was the M-26 Pershing. Didn't get in there to see much action but was the equal of the JS-II in armor and firepower and had a better rate of fire and superior turn of speed. Better ergonomics and optics, not to mention radios on all vehicles.

[Cuirassier]

jaeger8888,

"The T-34's 76.2mm regularly penetrates the late mode STG IIIs 80mm armor at 470 meters."

Umm, what? Not in my game.

[jaeger8888]

What are you doing wrong?

Just tested it again, 3 on 3. T-34/M43 vs Late Model STG IIIs.

At over 600m 1 STG III was knocked out, 1 had gun damaged on first shots from the T-34s.

Which version are you running?

[JasonC]

9 T-34s face 3 StuGs with 50+30 front armor, 3 vs 1 in each of 3 lanes separated by 40 meter barriers of woods. The initial range is 400 to 500 meters. Hit "GO". 2 minutes later, all the T-34s are dead and all the StuGs are fine.

Repeat the trial. One StuG is immobilized by a track hit 20 seconds into the first minute in one of the lanes. It kills 2 of the T-34s opposite. The third is beyond the limited traverse of its gun once it is immobilized. The remaining T-34 thus survives. In 4 minutes of fire, it hits the StuG repeatedly, but never harms it any further.

Total over both trials - 17 dead T-34s, 1 immobile but alive StuG.

The vehicles cost 114 points each - on both sides.

The Russians had 3 to 1, platoon vs. single vehicle, odds, in all cases. Didn't make a damn bit of difference.

German training documents explicitly say "within 500 meters, the front armor of the assault gun provided no protection from Russian tank guns".

German propaganda documents seeking new recruits for the StuG arm say "the life on an assault artilleryman is short but full of interest". No mention is made of the invulnerability of the vehicle to Russian guns, towed or tank.

German veteran accounts of the StuG vs. the T-34 stress (1) the low profile of the assault gun, (2) its superior optics (3) state that the engagement usually goes to the first hitter (4) stress firing from camo'ed ambush position at 800 to 1000 meters, to maximize first shot kill chances while maintaining stealth.

The German training documents give the effective range of the 75L48 vs. the T-34 as 1200 meters. At ranges beyond that they state that the gun is no longer effective against the T-34's armor.

Thus, all the contemporary evidence says the window between 600 and 1200 meters was lethal one way and not the other, and say exploiting that, exploiting superior optics and stealth and firing first, determined the outcome of StuG vs. T-34 duels. None of them state that the T-34s always lose unless they flank the StuG.

None of them show the slightest sign of the result seen in the trial above.

It is wrong, it is broken, everyone knows it. But some people will not admit anything that makes a German machine perform worse in the game. They'd sooner boil their grandmother in oil. They can't drive, they need a crutch, and they are beyond pathetic.

And I'm tired of it. Get a life already. Drive a Panzer IV long.

The Panzer IV long is overmodeled for the hull front in much the same way, and is superior to the T-34 in the game in every respect. It kills at range, bounces the 2/3rds of shots that hit the hull front, has superior optics, a 3 man vs. a 2 man turret, faster reaction times, a fast turret, great ammo depth and machine gun firepower.

Allied tankers would kill to have a vehicle with those characteristics in the average battle.

German CM players won't even look at a Panzer IV and consider it crap, because its turret front can, correctly, be penetrated at range by the Russian 76mm.

Nobody should put up with this nonsense. If your German opponent won't fight in Panzer IVs in 1943, and insists on driving only Tigers or StuGs instead, tell him to get a life and find a new opponent.

[dieseltaylor]

The best Allied tank in World War II was the M-26 Pershing. Didn't get in there to see much action but was the equal of the JS-II in armor and firepower and had a better rate of fire and superior turn of speed. Better ergonomics and optics, not to mention radios on all vehicles.

If we change "in" to "of" WW2 I am afraid the JSIII would be superior. And possibly the Centurion - though that was only going into production in 1945.

[dieseltaylor]

I wish people when quoting test results would give the month and year of the tests. Anyone trying to replicate without the information is wasting effort. Without dates the introduction of different shot/shells makes a mockery of results.

I agree with JC.: )

[jaeger8888]

The model vehicle is what matters. These are custom built situations.

My last 3 vs 3 resulted in 3 dead STG's at 466 meters.

Model t-34/43 vs STG IIIG in March of 1945. I counted 8 frontal hits on the STGs, 4 were clean penetrations and 4 non penetrating hits. Angled it a bit to allow the rotating turret of the T-34 get in the first round. Maybe the STG III is over modeled a bit but it doesn't seem invulnerable like others claims. Don't know why the different results.

[Kineas]

I think you test with the 80mm variant and not the 50+30mm one. Only the 50+30mm version is considered broken AFAIK.

[dieseltaylor]

Out of curiosity I looked at the ammunition situation in March 1945.

I bought six T34/43 and five of them had T ammo with penetration of 95mm at 500metres. I also bought six StugIIIG

I set the groups up against each other [as I would try never to play tank vs tank I like to see overall battlefield stuff] at 488 metres. In eight seconds the T34's have killed two Stugs and got partial penetrations on two more with no effect using their T ammo. After further firing all the T34's are dead at 50 seconds. They have scored a further SEVEN partial penetrations on the four remaining without knocking any StUGs out.

Incidentally at 1000metres the Russian tanks used their normal AP as it is 1mm better!

And of course died very speedily.

Looking at June 44 for the same tank I bought 30 and exactly half had no T ammo, most of the remainder had one or two rounds with a high of five. Incidentally buying them individually rather than in platoons gave me twelve tanks without T ammo- not really a significant result and possibly just random anyway.

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks Kineas

I have justed tested at 488 metres with six StUG IIIF with the 30+50mm armour. The results are the same in that the T34's got wiped. Given they only managed three hits, of which one was a partial and the others riccochets then it was probably not very good as a test. What was interesting was that despite me giving them loads of T ammo two of them immediately skulked which probably lead to loss of any accuracy.

SO it is conceivable that the IIIF variant is the most unfair of the Stug.

[Bigduke6]

We don't know he isn't mistaken. What is clear is we are looking for information to help us answer the question: Just how effective were Red Army and Wehrmacht tanks in tank to tank engagements, and proximately, how well or poorly does CMBB simulate those engagements?

Here are several things Reznikov has going for him as a source:

1. He was there, he is an actual participant of East Front armored engagements

2. He never played CM, he has no vested interest in demonstrating the game engine works or does not work.

3. He devoted considerable time and energy to learning as much as he could about Red Army and Wehrmacht armored vehicle effectiveness in tank to tank combat, as his life depended on it.

4. What he says is not based on theory, but actual experience.

Reznikov's comments are, for the purposes of this discussion, certainly not hearsay. Rather, they are anecdotal first person evidence. We are poor historians if we accept a recollection such as Resnikov's without further adieu or other sources, but we are even worse historians if we reject it on grounds that, since his eyewitness account is that of a single individuals, and since single individuals can never see the entire historical truth, we should reject eyewitness accounts as useful for historical discussions.

I suggest you read the account, and decide for yourself whether a combat veteran's recollections are worth considering, when discussing computer simulation of combat.

How do we Know Reznikov isn't mistaken. Perhaps he was suffering from Tiger Phobia like a lot of tankers in the Western Armies were. Reporting any Tank as a Tiger. A Panzer IV can't hurt a JSII from beyond 500 meters unless it hits the turret. In a court of law all of these so called memoirs and remembrances would be considered heresay. The only proof is the physics. The stats in the game provides all the proof you need. The T-34's 76.2mm regularly penetrates the late mode STG IIIs 80mm armor at 470 meters. I've tested this by creating a game situation. And it reflects the stats listed for the armor and armaments. Claims that the game has all rounds bounce of the 80mm front of a STG III is inaccurate. What is noticeable is the lack of lethality when the 76.2 does penetrate. If all the stats given in the unit listings are inaccurate then the Red Star advocates have a point. The German 75 has 18% more velocity then the Russian 76.2 which should give it greater hitting power. But the armor penetration stats in the game give a greater edge than 18% to the German 75. Someone needs to explain the greater than expected advantage. It would be great if they could gather a team of experts in metallurgy, ballistics etc. and figure out what the real story is.

[jaeger8888]

"I set the groups up against each other [as I would try never to play tank vs tank I like to see overall battlefield stuff] at 488 metres. In eight seconds the T34's have killed two Stugs and got partial penetrations on two more with no effect using their T ammo. After further firing all the T34's are dead at 50 seconds. They have scored a further SEVEN partial penetrations on the four remaining without knocking any StUGs out."

That's consistent with my results. The STG IIIs are not invulnerable, but for whatever reason the penetrations often times does not result in severe enough damage to the STG IIIs to put them out of action. Try repeating the results but allow the T-34s to get the first round of. The lethality of the German 75 are staggering by comparison. Usually one round will put the T-34 out of action.

[jaeger8888]

Why do you put so much faith in Russian claims, but just as readily dismiss German claims as propaganda and hogwash? If you're going to accept his eyewitness accounts than you will have to accept German accounts just as readily.

We don't know he isn't mistaken. What is clear is we are looking for information to help us answer the question: Just how effective were Red Army and Wehrmacht tanks in tank to tank engagements, and proximately, how well or poorly does CMBB simulate those engagements?

Here are several things Reznikov has going for him as a source:

1. He was there, he is an actual participant of East Front armored engagements

2. He never played CM, he has no vested interest in demonstrating the game engine works or does not work.

3. He devoted considerable time and energy to learning as much as he could about Red Army and Wehrmacht armored vehicle effectiveness in tank to tank combat, as his life depended on it.

4. What he says is not based on theory, but actual experience.

Reznikov's comments are, for the purposes of this discussion, certainly not hearsay. Rather, they are anecdotal first person evidence. We are poor historians if we accept a recollection such as Resnikov's without further adieu or other sources, but we are even worse historians if we reject it on grounds that, since his eyewitness account is that of a single individuals, and since single individuals can never see the entire historical truth, we should reject eyewitness accounts as useful for historical discussions.

I suggest you read the account, and decide for yourself whether a combat veteran's recollections are worth considering, when discussing computer simulation of combat.

[jaeger8888]

Just tested the F models. The 50mm F is an easy kill. The 50+30 late model is fru fru. Rounds penetrate but nothing happens to the vehicle from the hits. Wonder if the designers assigned some survivability rating to each vehicle and just booted this one?

Thanks Kineas

I have justed tested at 488 metres with six StUG IIIF with the 30+50mm armour. The results are the same in that the T34's got wiped. Given they only managed three hits, of which one was a partial and the others riccochets then it was probably not very good as a test. What was interesting was that despite me giving them loads of T ammo two of them immediately skulked which probably lead to loss of any accuracy.

SO it is conceivable that the IIIF variant is the most unfair of the Stug.

[JasonC]

jaeger has no idea what he is talking about.

T ammo in 1945 isn't APC in 1943.

Lowest armor quality 80mm isn't overmodeled 30+50.

In fact, the "early mid" 30+50 routinely bounces Russian *85mm* in 1943 at 750 meters. Which is insane, as even the individual most responsible for the overmodeling of layered armor admitted ages ago.

Nobody cares about 1945 anyway because the Russians can just take T-34/85s. The issue is from the second half of 1942 to the end of 1943. You know, the actually decisive period of the war, nothing important or anything.

It is indefensible. It is also easily solved.

In 1942, Germans should take Marders if they want a long 75mm gun, or Panzer III longs most of the time. They can take late Js or Ls, that level of cherry picking is no problem.

In 1943, Germans should take Panzer IV longs.

That's it. End of issue. Why fight it? How lame a tanker do you need to be, to not be able to fight in Panzer IV longs against vanilla T-34s?

[jaeger8888]

You mistake your one track mind on play balance and fairness as being the sole objective of everyone else. That's not my objective. I'm trying to verify your claims about rounds bouncing of and whether the 76.2mm guns performance is less than it should be. Try reading the heading in the thread, you might find it enlightening. They don't all bounce of, the physics model implies rounds are penetrating but are not causing any damage . There's several factors the game has to model, probability of hit, probability of penetration, probability of kill or damage, each of which has a myriad number of factors built into it. It's obviously a bug in the game for the late model STGIIIF. A coder would not put a case statement or an if clause for every unit type in the game. Most likely an array element has a bogus value. I'm am not concerned with the date or play balance but trying to pin point what's really occurring within the game itself. If you actually open up your mind you might understand what others are tying to determine.

[Bigduke6]

If you can find:

- A German first-hand report of the StuG resisting Soviet 76mm fire at short combat ranges

- A German first-hand report of PzIV routinely taking out Is-2 at long range

- A German first-hand report of Tiger I side and rear being absolutely impervious to Soviet 76mm at point blank ranges

I would be very interested to see it. And not just me.

If you cannot, and there ARE Soviet recollections flatly condtradicting your assumptions or your mathematical analysis, then perhaps you should reconsider the way you are crunching numbers.

Why do you put so much faith in Russian claims, but just as readily dismiss German claims as propaganda and hogwash? If you're going to accept his eyewitness accounts than you will have to accept German accounts just as readily.

[jaeger8888]

I never claimed that in actual combat that the STG III or Tiger I was impervious to everything.

As noted in my above postings, I've already conceded that the STG IIIF (late) is much to resistant to 76.2mm fire. As another poster has already mentioned its not a realistic simulation and really needs to be addressed.

Even the STG IIIG is suspiciously too survivable.

JSII vs PZ IV (long barreled 75) What is your definition of long range? If 1000 meters, I've tried that in a 4 on 4 situation multiple times and the JS2 barely get their paint scratched while all the Panzer IVs are dead in 60 seconds. I even gave the Germans a veteran and crack crew in two of the vehicles to no avail.

Tried the Tiger I vs T-34/76.2 at under 50 meters. Too screwy, Tiger tanks side armor and rear armor is 80mm in the game which matches the documentation. Max penetration for the 76.2 is 81mm at 100meters.

This also appears to be out of whack and needs to be addressed.

The Panzer IVH also has 80mm frontal armor, but The 76.2mm does do a fairly good job at knocking it out in the game.

The JSII is not invulnerable. Despite what Reznikov says, from the same website:

http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-development/28-heavy-tanks/32-js1-js2.html

You can't cherry pick your info.

And real world physics is not theoretical. It's factual and real, your cars, airplanes and all the structures around you were planned and constructed using mathematics and physics. My background is in Computer Sciences, if I was to code this game what you propose that I use to model the real world? If I throw numbers away, then I might as well use some randomizing routine and the tanks would be generic vehicles and let the chips fall where they may.

Read "The Design and Development of Armored Fighting Vehicles" by Ogorkiewicz. A real engineer with a real background in AFV developement.

He uses real world physics.

If you can find:

- A German first-hand report of the StuG resisting Soviet 76mm fire at short combat ranges

- A German first-hand report of PzIV routinely taking out Is-2 at long range

- A German first-hand report of Tiger I side and rear being absolutely impervious to Soviet 76mm at point blank ranges

I would be very interested to see it. And not just me.

If you cannot, and there ARE Soviet recollections flatly condtradicting your assumptions or your mathematical analysis, then perhaps you should reconsider the way you are crunching numbers.

[Bigduke6]

I don't see where Reznikov is contradicted. If anything, I would say the essay you cite supports my argument.

According to the essay you cited (and Valery Potapov helped design CMBB if I am not mistaken), the following should be true for CMBB:

- Prior to May '44, Stalin II hull and turret gives decreased protection due to brittle metal

- 85mm DS-5 Soviet cannon penetrates 100mm Tiger armor out to 1,000 m.

- Post May '44 Stalin II front upper hull is impervious to German KwK36 88mm AT at point blank, armor is no longer generally brittle.

- Post May '44 Stalin II lower hull is reinforced with tracks gave increased armored protection

- Soviet 85mm HE round OF-471 can defeat armor or Tiger I and Panther, by causing cracking and seam failure.

If I was playing Soviets in CMBB, I would love for all but the first point - Stalin II brittle armor - to be the case.

The first point is simulated in CMBB. Reznikov also refers to it, he says there were some problems with armor quality in the early Stalins.

The other four points - powerful 85mm AP, powerful 85mm AP, Stalin II upper hull post '44 impervious to everything up through 88mm, Stalin II lower hull reinforced in style of late model PzIII or StuG are all advantageous to the Soviet player.

These four points mentioned in the article you cite are not, to my knowledge, simulated in CMBB. And I have played Soviets more than a couple of times.

As to Reznikov's account, he is not specific as to enemy calibers, but he makes clear that Stalin II was very resistant to German AT fire, as far as his experience went, and I would say his experience - seeing as it runs from pretty much the first Stalin II fielded to the end of the war - is not easily discounted. So I would say his recollections roughly match Potapov's essay. One would expect that Soviet tank, in CMBB post May '44 anyway, to be a real pain for a German player to kill.

I would not say that is the case in CMBB.

Since you ask, I would say long range is dependant on a lot of factors, including time of war, armored vehicle, terrain, and weather. As a general thing for the East Front, I would say that 1,000 meters is longish range and 1,500 meters is already long range. 500 to 800 meters is medium range, and anything below that is short range.

[Vark]

Thought I'd test a company of late model 1943 T-34's (10 vehicles) versus one mid-war Stug G, in a 1943 encounter, at 400-450 metres (depending which T-34 was targeted). All AFV's had regular crews and the results were very consistent. I noted

1. After the opening exchange of fire the majority of T-34's retreated, in one case four behind a brewed up T-34!

2. The Stug KO'd three t-34's before being KO's as a result of mobility /fire power kills, only three of which came from a frontal aspect shot.

3. Most frontal shots registered no penetration on the Stug.

Repeating the exercise with two Stugs resulted in the AI hail-firing HE at them to get a mobility kill, if they could KO the Stugs using AP one wonders why the AI adopted that technique. Most of the time one Stug was bailed and the T-34's were slaughtered. Had six cower behind their burning comrade, on one occasion, seems their crews are well aware of the imbalance between the CM model and reality.

[jaeger8888]

Response to "85mm DS-5 Soviet cannon penetrates 100mm Tiger armor out to 1,000 m.)"

Where do you read that the DS-5 (you mean D-5?) could consistently penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger at 1000m? In the article it cites the AA gun 85mm 52K M-1939 as the most effective gun.

The 85mm gun on most T-34/85s were the ZIS-53S derivedfrom the 52K.

1000 meters is at the extreme range of the ZIS-53S effectiveness against the Tiger, The ZIS-53S could penetrate 102mm at 1000 meters (from the book T-34-85 by Zaloga).

I found this on wikipedia

"

Savin was put to work modifying Grabin's gun to fit and incorporating other improvements, and his initial was added to its designation in recognition of his contribution: ZiS-S-53. The T-34-85 Model 1944, which included an improved 3-man turret layout, started production with this gun in the spring of 1944. When later tested against German armor, it was found that the tank gun developed from the 85-mm AA gun lacked the power of its predecessor and a new antitank gun was made, the 122-mm gun.

"

Although derived from the K52 85mm AA the resultant gun wasn't as satisfactory at tank killing as the original weapon. If anybody has the books cited in the wikipedia article it would be great help if they could look up the cause of the drop off in performance.

Whether the ZIS-53S could consistently kill Tigers I'm not certain. At 500 meters I've killed Tigers and gotten them killed by the 85 in the game. I've tested 5 T-34/85s at 1000 meters against a single Tiger, usually one or two 85's are killed but the Tiger is overwhelmed by partial penetrations.

Response to: - "Post May '44 Stalin II front upper hull is impervious to German KwK36 88mm AT at point blank, armor is no longer generally brittle."

There were three articles, the tabs on the top brings you to two other articles. One of the articles state instances of 88mm/L56 from Tiger I's penetrating the front armor of the JSII at over 500 meters during Combat in May, 1944. The Russian test you cited was done at a 30 degree angle, but 30 degrees to what? It's kind of vague.

The slope of the JSII is 30 degrees, is the angle on top of the 30 degree slope so that the shell impacts at a 60 degree angle. That would only be a glancing shot, hard to get a penetrating hit for anybody. The JSII was still vulnerable through the Turret. As the article stated, it couldn't be improved.

The Third article states either tank could kill the other out to 1000m.

Again the proof is in the pudding. Using BtB, Took 4 tigers vs 4 JS IIs in Dec 1944 at 1000m. The 88's shells more often than not ricochet of the JSII. The 122 invariably penetrated and caused catastrophic failure in the Tiger. But for every one 122, 3 88 rounds were fired giving the Tigers a chance to saturate the JSII. It's usually a even match unless your unlucky and get bad dice rolls. Almost all the JSIIs died from rounds through the turret.

"- Post May '44 Stalin II lower hull is reinforced with tracks gave increased armored protection"

Every combatant starting put all kinds of gadgets on their hulls to increase protection. The game is an abstraction, it can't take into account every knickknack a tank crew puts on their hull. I don't think anyone as done a study on the impact of tank tracks on shell performance, if anybody knows post it. The Late model STGIIIF addtitional armor was not tank treads but bolted on armor.

"Soviet 85mm HE round OF-471 can defeat armor or Tiger I and Panther, by causing cracking and seam failure"

The OF-471 was a 122mm round. I haven't read of an OF-471 for the 85mm.

I don't see where Reznikov is contradicted. If anything, I would say the essay you cite supports my argument.

According to the essay you cited (and Valery Potapov helped design CMBB if I am not mistaken), the following should be true for CMBB:

- Prior to May '44, Stalin II hull and turret gives decreased protection due to brittle metal

- 85mm DS-5 Soviet cannon penetrates 100mm Tiger armor out to 1,000 m.

- Post May '44 Stalin II front upper hull is impervious to German KwK36 88mm AT at point blank, armor is no longer generally brittle.

- Post May '44 Stalin II lower hull is reinforced with tracks gave increased armored protection

- Soviet 85mm HE round OF-471 can defeat armor or Tiger I and Panther, by causing cracking and seam failure.

If I was playing Soviets in CMBB, I would love for all but the first point - Stalin II brittle armor - to be the case.

The first point is simulated in CMBB. Reznikov also refers to it, he says there were some problems with armor quality in the early Stalins.

The other four points - powerful 85mm AP, powerful 85mm AP, Stalin II upper hull post '44 impervious to everything up through 88mm, Stalin II lower hull reinforced in style of late model PzIII or StuG are all advantageous to the Soviet player.

These four points mentioned in the article you cite are not, to my knowledge, simulated in CMBB. And I have played Soviets more than a couple of times.

As to Reznikov's account, he is not specific as to enemy calibers, but he makes clear that Stalin II was very resistant to German AT fire, as far as his experience went, and I would say his experience - seeing as it runs from pretty much the first Stalin II fielded to the end of the war - is not easily discounted. So I would say his recollections roughly match Potapov's essay. One would expect that Soviet tank, in CMBB post May '44 anyway, to be a real pain for a German player to kill.

I would not say that is the case in CMBB.

Since you ask, I would say long range is dependant on a lot of factors, including time of war, armored vehicle, terrain, and weather. As a general thing for the East Front, I would say that 1,000 meters is longish range and 1,500 meters is already long range. 500 to 800 meters is medium range, and anything below that is short range.

[jaeger8888]

On page 102 of the BtB Manual it states:

"...curved mantlets such as the famous "Saukopfblende" of the German StuGIII, which can provide an effective armor protection substantially higher than the base thickness and slope indicate..."

If its so famous why can't it be googled on the web. The book "Sturmgeschutze III and IV" by Jentz and Doyle never mention it.

Anybody ever hear of this feature?

Have you tried the JSII against the Tiger I and Panzer IVH?

Just wondering if you get the same results.

Thought I'd test a company of late model 1943 T-34's (10 vehicles) versus one mid-war Stug G, in a 1943 encounter, at 400-450 metres (depending which T-34 was targeted). All AFV's had regular crews and the results were very consistent. I noted

1. After the opening exchange of fire the majority of T-34's retreated, in one case four behind a brewed up T-34!

2. The Stug KO'd three t-34's before being KO's as a result of mobility /fire power kills, only three of which came from a frontal aspect shot.

3. Most frontal shots registered no penetration on the Stug.

Repeating the exercise with two Stugs resulted in the AI hail-firing HE at them to get a mobility kill, if they could KO the Stugs using AP one wonders why the AI adopted that technique. Most of the time one Stug was bailed and the T-34's were slaughtered. Had six cower behind their burning comrade, on one occasion, seems their crews are well aware of the imbalance between the CM model and reality.

[JasonC]

jaeger doesn't know that formula aren't physics.

Physicists know this.

But the reason the 30+50 StuG is impenetrable isn't physics or a standard formula, nor a software issue as he supposes. It is much simpler than that. 30+50 ought to resist like about 75mm solid plate, according to all the standard naval formulas. In the game is resists more like 90 to 95mm of solid plate. And the reason is the designers listened to "German physics" BS from a design advisor, and everyone else involved in this discussion knows every syllable of it, chapter and verse. It's nonsense.

Now, is jaeger8888 going to agree to the recommendation that German players fight in Panzer IV longs in 1943? Or is he going to defend cherry picking only Tigers or broken StuGs?

If he still can't make up his mind, put either an "early mid" StuG or a Tiger I in a lane with SU-85s in 1943. Not 1944 (the ammo modeling matters by year). Try Russian 85mm AA too, against both. Vary the range from 1200 meters down to 600 meters in 200 meter increments. Then come back and tell us there is no issue, again.

Newbies need their teeth straightened, but after five or six years it gets tiresome. You aren't god's gift and we aren't idiots, we know *exactly* what we are talking about. You - don't.

[Kingfish]

If its so famous why can't it be googled on the web. The book "Sturmgeschutze III and IV" by Jentz and Doyle never mention it.

Anybody ever hear of this feature?

I typed in the word into Google and the first hit I got showed this

I believe the translation means "boars snout" or something like that.

Edit: sorry, the translation I get with babelfish is "Sow's head screen".