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

[ArgusEye]

T-34/85s routinely clobbered King Tigers.

Inasfar as there were sufficient KT's to routinely do anything to them? The Königstiger was an automotive disaster, so many were lost to drive failures that it's quite tough to analyse how their tactical loss rates were. If you know a good one though, I remain interested.

Claims that they couldn't penetrate 80mm armor are hogwash. The Germans themselves report 80mm front StuGs became vulnerable at ranges out of 1.5 km against 85mm.

I know, I quoted that. However, it is becoming apparent that to speak of 'the' 85mm is similar to speaking of 'the' 75mm. There were many changes/advances in guns and projectiles in this caliber.

As for the performance, it roughly matched not the 88L71 (absurd claim) but the 88L56.

The Petrow or Grabin attempts at a BM version of this caliber never made it to large scale production, but they were a serious attempt. And they were shooting for a nominal 1000m/s shot.

There is no appreciable difference in muzzle energy or anything else between the 88 Flak and the Russian 85mm.

85mm AA: 3.6 MJ - 8200 Ns

85mm D5-T: 2.9 MJ - 7300 Ns

w/subcaliber: 3.6 MJ - 6000 Ns

85mm ZIS-S-53: 2.7 MJ - 7000 Ns

w/subcaliber: 3.5 MJ - 5900 Ns

FlaK 36: 3.1 MJ - 7650 Ns

w/subcaliber: 3.1 MJ - 6800 Ns

FlaK 41: 4.9 MJ - 10000 Ns

PaK 43: 5.1 MJ - 10200 Ns

w/subcaliber: 4.7 MJ - 8250 Ns

As we see there is quite a bit of variation in both calibers. The closest to the FlaK 36 is the D5-T, and the FlaK delivers 7% more energy with standard ammunition, but the D5-T delivers 17% more energy with subcaliber rounds. Hardly negligible.

Energy is only one part of the equation. Accuracy of the German guns is reported to be better by both sides. Ammunition quality is a major difference, especially in 1943. It is not right to equate KT's getting holed by a T34/85 in late 1944 with a D5 shooting crappy 365 at a StuG front in mid 1943.

That is not to say that the 85 would fail against the StuG front per sé; it just makes it harder to be categorical about anything at all. Until we can track down some primary sources about this matchup at this time, anything in the range is possible.

[JoMac]

I also think that T-34/85s can KO King-Tigers on the flank and Stug fronts out to a kilometer.

[JasonC]

lol - you are citing figures for L74 and L71 German guns and comparing them to the Russian 85.

The Flak 18 fired a 9.5 kg shell at 810 meters per second.

The Flak 37 fired a 10.2 kg shell at 800 meters per second.

The KwK 36 fired at 10.2 kg shell at 773 meters per second.

The earlier Russian 85mms fired a 9.02 kg shell at 792 meters per second.

The later D-5 fired at 9.2 kg shell at 785 meters per second.

There are only tiny differences in the performance of any of them. Those are the famous German 88s and the Tiger I.

The Flak 41 (which is an L74 gun, not an L56) wasn't a standard item - less than 600 were made and after a brief failed trial run in Tunisia (not mobile enough) they were all kept in Germany for high altitude AA work. That compares to over 18000 88 Flak of the other types (18 and 37 etc).

The Russians went with the 85mm because they tested every gun they had on captured Tigers, and the already existing 85mm AA gun succeeded against it, as did the A-19 long 122mm that ended up in the JS series, and the 152mm gun-howizter that went into the Animal Killers. The 85mm was the easiest to fit in a T-34 chassis - and it was initially easier to fit it in the SP way than into a redesigned, larger turret. That is why the SU-85 existed. After T-34/85s were available they were less essential, and after SU-100s became available a year later, they weren't needed at all.

But in the last third of 1943, the SU-85 and SU-152 were the only AFVs that could handle German heavies, and that outmatched the vanilla Panzer IVs and StuGs enough to kill them at range. In CM, the SU-85 is ammo nerfed for no good reason, and the SU-152 is given a rate of fire that I have personally exceeded by a factor of 2 in a gun of the same caliber. And I wasn't even particularly good at it. 2 rounds a minute is a sustained rate of fire for a 152mm gun, not the max achievable in tactical firefights. Then the 57mm ATG that was present in twice the numbers of Tigers is given a +100% rariety rating and the Tiger is given a +10 or 20. Meanwhile the biggest towed guns aren't shown at all in game, and the 85mm AA is ammo-nerfed like the SU-85.

In other words, every historical answer is closed off.

Then when German players are asked to adapt to this broken game state by driving Panzer IVs in 1943, they refused to consider it and tell me that the Panzer IV is a piece of crap. When it has a fast 3 man turret, gun that kills anything, superior optics, adequate mobility, and an 80mm front hull that bounces practically everything the Russians have at typical combat ranges. The Russians or Americans would kill for a weapon with those characteristics.

Which is proof positive that they can't drive...

[ArgusEye]

lol - you are citing figures for L74 and L71 German guns and comparing them to the Russian 85.

I'm glad I was able to make you laugh. Regardless, I listed the L71 models for comparison. The FlaK 36 is at the top of the German list, if you've missed it.

The Flak 18 fired a 9.5 kg shell at 810 meters per second.

The Flak 37 fired a 10.2 kg shell at 800 meters per second.

The KwK 36 fired at 10.2 kg shell at 773 meters per second.

The earlier Russian 85mms fired a 9.02 kg shell at 792 meters per second.

The later D-5 fired at 9.2 kg shell at 785 meters per second.

If you'll do the computation, you will see that you end up with the energy amounts I listed above.

There are only tiny differences in the performance of any of them. Those are the famous German 88s and the Tiger I.

I wouldn't call it tiny. The D5-T and ZIS-S-53 are very different from the FlaK 36, especially when considering things like subcaliber ammunition.

The Flak 41 (which is an L74 gun, not an L56) wasn't a standard item - less than 600 were made and after a brief failed trial run in Tunisia (not mobile enough) they were all kept in Germany for high altitude AA work. That compares to over 18000 88 Flak of the other types (18 and 37 etc).

And therefore... ?

The Russians went with the 85mm because they tested every gun they had on captured Tigers, and the already existing 85mm AA gun succeeded against it,

Not as far as I've been able to find.

as did the A-19 long 122mm that ended up in the JS series, and the 152mm gun-howizter that went into the Animal Killers.

The SU-152 was nicknamed the zvierboi, the 'animal killer', exactly because it was remarkable in being able to bust the Panther and Tiger from any angle.

The 85mm was the easiest to fit in a T-34 chassis - and it was initially easier to fit it in the SP way than into a redesigned, larger turret. That is why the SU-85 existed. After T-34/85s were available they were less essential, and after SU-100s became available a year later, they weren't needed at all.

There was a lot more design and redesign going on before a pared-down 85mm gun could be fitted into a T34 turret. The D5 was what was used for the SU-85, but only a shorter version went into the T34/85

But in the last third of 1943, the SU-85 and SU-152 were the only AFVs that could handle German heavies, and that outmatched the vanilla Panzer IVs and StuGs enough to kill them at range.

Do you have any historical references of this? Because I looked, and I cannot find anything useful - at the very least nothing that would support such a categorical statement!

In CM, the SU-85 is ammo nerfed for no good reason, and the SU-152 is given a rate of fire that I have personally exceeded by a factor of 2 in a gun of the same caliber.

Same caliber - but also in a cramped SPG? (which got bitched about by its crews because of some poor layout choices?)

Then the 57mm ATG that was present in twice the numbers of Tigers is given a +100% rariety rating and the Tiger is given a +10 or 20.

The rarity system is devised to push players to choose force mixes that more closely resemble reality. Because there was a much smaller chance 57mm would be present compared to other, more common guns, it gets a higher rarity penalty. If this is an issue for you, you can turn it off in the parameter screen of the quick battle generator.

In other words, every historical answer is closed off.

Close assault teams? Mines? Hail fire? I agree that an enemy Tiger is a tough nut to crack, but that is historical.

Then when German players are asked to adapt to this broken game state by driving Panzer IVs in 1943, they refused to consider it and tell me that the Panzer IV is a piece of crap.

I don't understand people who stick to one side. They miss half the game.

The game has its shortcomings, but restricting your opponent to make him more beatable is a bit odd. Especially when you rule out the single most produced unit in his arsenal from consideration. The game doesn't look that broken to me in this regard. There are many things to complain more about.

Which is proof positive that they can't drive...

Or that they don't like to be restricted by their opponent - for questionable reasons.

[JasonC]

OK, now you are just trolling...

[ArgusEye]

Refusal to take your statements as historical fact is not trolling. You can easily refute any of my arguments if you can come up with some sources. I'm not arguing anything intangible. If you can't, then what do you base your statements on?

I see, by the way, that I made a bad formulation in my previous post. The D5-T was shorter than the D5 in its complete length including mounting and recuperator, not barrel length.

[Gothkrieger]

Very interesting and technical thread indeed. I enjoy the stats. Game wise I have not played with any of the heavy tanks yet as I have been playing the quick battles in the early years of the Russian campaign but it seems that the maps themselves are not very large in general, that close range fighting seems to be the norm due to terrain and line of sight issues and it appears from a game play perspective that any decently gunned tank will take out the other if they get hits. The long range gun an optics superiority of the German tanks does not come in to play often, as the shoot up more often than not, is well under 500 meters anyway.

[Joachim]

In CM, the SU-85 is ammo nerfed for no good reason, and the SU-152 is given a rate of fire that I have personally exceeded by a factor of 2 in a gun of the same caliber. And I wasn't even particularly good at it. 2 rounds a minute is a sustained rate of fire for a 152mm gun, not the max achievable in tactical firefights.

Well, please tell us that you were

a) the only loader for your howitzer

were refined into the typical small interior of a Soviet tank while handling a 50kg shell consisting of two parts.

That would make it comparable.

If you just were one of two loaders/ammo handlers in a gun crew - would you achieve that ROF alone while being unable to stand?

Interestingly the German Brummbär has a similar low ROF in CM. Even for its HC round weighing just 25kg or half of the 152mm round.

[Bastables]

OK, now you are just trolling...

Bit passive aggressive since your reference to so called StuG troop instructions was shown to refer to StuG's with circa 5cm armor.

8cm StuG's are killable at sub 500m ranges problems seems to be the appliqué armored StuG's.

[jtcm2]

Do we conclude that playing with StuG's is fine, if one keeps off the 50+30 ones ? That 80 mm is well simulated in being penetrable, if only just, at 500 m ?

[JasonC]

Joachim -

Yes loading and firing an M109 howitzer (155mm self propelled) is a one man job.

Yes it is separate loading ammunition.

Yes the shell weighs 100 pounds. Not counting the powder charge behind it.

Yes it is in a tightly confined AFV interior. You are standing, and have room to pivot your torso. There is only one place you'll fit when the barrel recoils. Etc.

Sometimes the shells come in through an opened hatch in the back of the vehicle from an ammo team, but more often they come from ready racks at the back of the vehicle or are picked up off the floor.

You also have to use a hydraulic ram to fully seat the shell (after it is inserted manually), before inserting the powder charge.

And it includes priming and firing, besides loading.

The fastest men in my unit could do it in 10 seconds. I routinely did it in 15. It isn't hard. That is a lot more time than you think. In fact the only difficult bit is the shell lift and that, only after about the first 10. Which is no worse than doing weight reps.

The 2 per minute recommended sustained rate of fire doesn't have anything to do with how fast the operations can be performed, nor even with loader muscle fatigue (though that might matter in all day shooting, rather than one fire mission - we rarely pushed to anything like that in training). Instead it is about heat build up in the barrel. Shooting faster than that for hours or days, will "burn out" the barrel (slight heat created distortions that can increase "windage" and thus change shell flight ballistics and put the round off where the rest of the battery is landing). That's it. The notion that it takes 30 seconds to actually physically load the shell, is completely wrong.

[Joachim]

Well, if we ignore other factors (coordination, targetting) influencing ROF then it might just be a bad layout of the interior. The Hetzer has the same gun as other StuGs, but a slower ROF. But the ISU152 has the luxury of a separate breech operator, so should not suffer from any of those problems.

Due to availability of interior comms coordination of loading, laying and firing should be possible, even with a slight delay. So that might be a "bug".

Yet in CM most 150mm guns have ROF 2 (cf. Chris' CM database). Hummel, Brummbär, JS2/3, KV2, sIG. Even the towed sIG 15cm has ROF 3, as does the 105mmRCL. Which definitely hurts those tanks/guns. It hurts some of the prime Tiger/Panther killers for the Soviets. But it hurts some of the best German early war guns: Those able to reliably kill T34s and KVs, albeit with just a few HC rounds.

OTOH having those large guns lobbing 4 or more direct HE rounds per turn at enemy inf would ruin the game, too. Especially the Soviet tanks (or the German open topped 15cm vehicles) would burn thru their limited ammo quickly when using area fire. I prefer the current ROF when targetting inf. Usually 1 or 2 rounds are enough.

And the primary RL use of the brick throwers is throwing direct HE, not fighting tanks.

So I see several "features" within CM:

a) The ROF is fixed for a certain gun or tank (adding a "fire slowly" command would mean another command - BFC went for a minimal interface, so I can understand this decision)

Looks like BFC opted to use tanks according to their RL use. The Soviet 122mm+ chuckers were intended as assault guns, not to fight tanks. For this role I prefer a slow ROF, enabling me to combat several targets over a prolonged period.

c) IIRC CM was designed as an "inf Co with support" game.

Given the intended scope in CM, a low ROF is a valid design decision.

But Players fight mostly armor engagements. Even worse, most are Meeting engagements which were rare in RL.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

IMO the slow ROF is not the real issue. slow ROF becomes an issue because the simulation has shortcomings with first shot hit chances (at minimal and normal ranges) and ability to spot non-moving non-firing enemy vehicles.

likewise i think the TacAI auto-reverse is worse issue than some penetration modelling. things like IS-2 auto-reversing when spotting a Panther at a range where the IS-2 has the odds. ^^

btw i recall from my tests that the 85mm AA does penetrate Tiger I armor per the Soviet trials (kills from sides at >1000 meters). the strange thing about the 85mm AA is that i think i stopped using it after i got it without any AP in a couple of games.

EDIT: i am not suggesting you should equate Tiger I armor with the StuG one. AFAIK Tiger I armor did better than it should in all trials by all sides. i don't think there are any proven or generally accepted theories why Tiger I armor was so resistant (it's not just hardness or such), it just was surprisingly resistant. where as Tiger I armor should resist better than expected, the StuG armor shoud resist less than expected (expecting that one does not expect the effects caused by combined plates etc).

[jtcm2]

So is 85 mm OK or not in CMBB ?

[Migo441]

jtcm2,

I'm no expert but, from what I've read on the boards, the 85mm is generally OK but be aware that it suffers from "ammo quality" issues in 1943 which many believe to be overdone.

So in '44 and beyond it's "OK."

In '43 it's iffy due to the overwhelming number of "shell broke up" results.

[Bigduke6]

The issue with the ZiS-3 and F-34 in CMBB is that the weapons are ineffective against 80mm German armor. During the war, Soviet tactics using these weapons vs. StuGs was "Wait until they're in close range", and vs. Tiger I "Wait until the Tiger turns a flank, and it's in close range." Also, hail fire was considered important, as in the Soviet experience multiple hits caused accumulative damage that would eventually force the German vehicle's armor to fail, or cause a mechanical failure behind the armor.

Those tactics are ineffective in CMBB, because if the Soviet 76mm does hit even at close range it will not penetrate the German 80mm armor. Further, due to borg spotting, a StuG or Tiger I under 76mm fire will detect the 76mm firing on it, and return fire, often in 15 seconds or less, and as a rule in less than a minute.

The net effect of this is that one of the least expensive and most common armored vehicles in the game, the StuG, is frontally invulnerable to the most common Soviet AT weapon, from about 1942 until about late 1944. (I don't know offhand when the reinforced front StuG was fielded, some one correct me.)

Also, as a result of this, the top German armored vehicle from the period 1942 - 1944 is as a practical matter invulnerable to the basic Soviet AT weapon, from a full 360 degrees.

The Soviets that actually fought the Tigers and StuGs did not think so.

If you go here - http://battlefield.ru/ru/tank-armaments/38-76mm-guns/110-f34.html- you will find an article on 76mm weapons by none other than Valery Potapov, who was as I understand it one of the main Soviet weapons experts involved in developing CMBB.

If you look in about the middle of the article, there is a spiffy table drawn according to Potapov from Red Army tech data, and the read out on what the Soviets thought on how the F-34/ZiS-3 should perform is clear:

The BR-350A 76mm armor-piercing round if it hit the armor square on (90 degree angle) at 100 meters or less, would have a small chance (the number is 20 per cent) of penetrating up to 89mm of armor, and guaranteed penetration (i.e., four shots out of five) of overcoming up to 80mm of armor. In other words, if the shell got a square point blank hit on the turret of a Tiger I or a StuG front, the Soviets figured there was an excellent chance it would get through.

If the angle of the flight of the shell was less than a right angle, or the range above 100m, then according to the Soviets things got dicier, it wasn't considered impossible but it was far from a guaranteed thing.

The Soviets, being Soviets, realized this was not acceptable, and by 1942 they had improved the shell. This was, unsurprisingly, named the BR-350B. It was a little heavier overall, had a bit less explosives inside of it, and it had a pair of "cuts" in the head of the shell to reduce the effect of shatter gap. According to the Soviet tests, this improved its anti-armor performance by rougly 3 per cent.

You can find a discussion on the BR-350B about on the middle of the page here: http://gorod.tomsk.ru/index-1271415840.php

Were CMBB to replicate this, a CMBB 76mm in a post-1941 scenario should overcome German 80mm armor at ranges of say 200m or less, fairly reliable. Maybe not every time, but most of the time.

I defy any one to obtain performance like that from a CMBB 76mm. That is the essence of the "Soviet 76mm is undermodeled" argument. It is not undermodeled by much, and the undermodeling only comes into play against the StuG's front and the Tiger I's turret and hull sides and rear.

If any one out there has something in Russian needing translating, I read Russian.

[JasonC]

jtcm - Migo has it right. 85mm is fine in 1944 and after. 85mm in 1943, when you actually need it to handle both vanilla German AFVs with 80mm plates (StuGs and Panzer IV hull fronts) and especially against "critters", doesn't work. You will just get "shell broke up" and it will fail against 30+50mm StuG fronts out to about 800 meters.

In 1943, the Russians actually had (1) towed 152mm gun howitzers, (2) towed 122mm guns (3) 85mm AA used in an AT role in every mechanized and tank corps (4) SU-122s with HC ammunition (5) SU-85s in the last third of the year (6) several thousand 57mm ATGs, towed, (7) a few SU-152s. In CM you have (7) or nothing when rariety is on, and (6) as well if it is off. (7) get 2 shots per minute and suffers from cower. All the rest of the real answers are missing or nerfed. (1) missing (only indirect), (2) ditto, (3) ammo is nerfed until 1944, (4) no HC ammo is given (5) SU-85 ammo is nerfed (6) 57mm rariety is 5 times that of Tiger Is (lol), (7) is the only answer left and its rate of fire is nerfed.

The solution is for Germans to drive Panzer IVs. If the German player wants access to StuGs and Tigers, then both players should agree beforehand to "no holds barred", rariety should be off, and the Russians should feel free to cherry pick 57mm ATGs, captured StuGs (which do what SU-85s actually did), IL-2s, 300mm rockets, anything you please.

[ArgusEye]

Bigduke - your first link is dead. The lists in the page you mean to link to are also on this page: http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-armaments/98-supplemental-information/355-specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html , but here there is the added information that this is the theoretical performance. Other sources (I think even Potapov himself) repeatedly state that the Russians use the Krupp formulae. The Krupp formulae contain a constant (sometimes called the Krupp coefficient) which assumes certain metal qualities for penetrator and armour. By all accounts, the Soviets used the pre-war German Krupp coefficient in these calculations - which would have been a tad optimistic. Much more interesting are real tests, but these don't usually give easy results. I have not found a lot of reports from the Soviet side of doing this.

By the way, Potapov warns us that real performance falls short for the F34 until 1943 due to poor ammunition. A secondary source, I am afraid; primary sources about Soviet ammunition quality have proven to be hard to find. If you are a reader of Russian, perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

The second link does not give any performance data as far as I can find. Are you sure it is in there?

In the game, when I test StuGs against T34s, I find the StuGs tough opponents. They are killable, in extremis from 500 meters, but much better from closer ranges; but never do they become easy kills. A good amount of hits is necessary. This matches what I read about the measures taken against these things. The 50+30 should perform worse than it does, but I find it hard to say the same about the 80mm fronts.

Further study into the sparse source material about the 85mm ammunition issue has not given me anything conclusive. I have found one quote of Guderian, of which the essay only records that it is from 1944:

Overconfidence due to the enemy's greatly variable ammunition quality must be actively suppressed. Twelve centimeter ammuntion failures have long not been reported anymore, and the 8,5 centimeter seems to be improving as well.

which does not tell us anything other than the Germans being aware of ammunition trouble. But cast your eye on this dissection of a UBR-365K shell:

The numbers denote local Rockwell hardness. This is horrible quality, and this is from 1953, in the Korean war! This is the improved round. It boggles the mind to think what the bad rounds must have been like.

[JasonC]

Aside to Bast - not remotely. StuHs with 50mm fronts do not exist, and the comment was directly about the StuH. Also, there is no Russian tank gun that penetrates 50mm armor at 500 meters and fails beyond that range. Not 45mm, not 76mm. There is a plate that does so, on StuHs - and it is 80mm, vs. 76mm.

[Bigduke6]

Argueseye,

Must I write the essay again? Suits me, every time I do this essay more Russian-language Internet evidence piles up to undermine the panzer fanboys.

First, sorry about the link. For info on the F-34 and its performance stats, try going here: http://www.battlefield.ru/ru/tank-armaments/38-76mm-guns/110-f34.html

Second, I found part of your last remarks rather curious. You said:

In the game, when I test StuGs against T34s, I find the StuGs tough opponents. They are killable, in extremis from 500 meters, but much better from closer ranges; but never do they become easy kills. A good amount of hits is necessary. This matches what I read about the measures taken against these things. The 50+30 should perform worse than it does, but I find it hard to say the same about the 80mm fronts.

That is not my experience with CMBB. But then I am getting old, perhaps I have forgotten how these engagements play out when one tests them in an actual scenario.

So for the umpteenth time, let's benchmark how CMBB simulates Soviet 76mm AP and German 82mm plate, and German 50mm + 30mm plate armor.

For this test, I used CMBB with the 1.03 patch. I created a scenario with two Soviet ZiS-3 76mm cannon, regular, each loaded out with 20 rounds of AP. They were in a scattered woods line. The time of the scenario was June 1943, daylight, no precipitation.

I picked June 1943 using the logic Soviet ammo would have been fairly reliable by that time. Lend Lease (the source of approximately half of the explosives used by the Soviets in the war) had been in operation for a year and a half. The Soviet munitions factories had been transported to the Urals, had been operating unhindered for 6 – 9 months.

Opposite one of the 76mm cannon, I set up a veteran Tiger I directly opposite, rear of the Tiger facing the ZiS-5, range 200 meters. I removed all ammo from the Tiger, and buttoned it.

Opposite the other 76mm cannon, I set up a veteran StuG assault gun with the 50+30 front. The StuG was facing the ZiS-3, also at 200 meters.

Once I began the scenario, I put cover arcs on each ZiS-3 so that it would fire only on the vehicle opposite it. I also put cover arcs on the Tiger and the StuG, so that they would not fire back with their machine guns at the Soviet cannon.

I then began the scenario. 1st minute of firing, 7 hits vs. the Tiger, all ricochets. 8 hits vs. the StuG, one track hit.

OK, so maybe 200m is too far to expect decent performance from the Soviet 76mm gun. Perhaps all the Soviet anecdotal reports that 200m was more or less the threshold to have a reasonable chance to harm a Tiger provided you got the drop on it, were lies.

To determine whether that was the case, I reduced the range to 100m. The relative positions of the German vehicles to the Soviet cannon were unchanged.

After one minute of firing, 7 hits on the Tiger, all ricochets, no damage to the Tiger

After one minute of firing on the StuG the StuG took 4 hits, all ricochets, no damage to the Stug, at which point the assault gun decided to back up and turn a flank to the gun, received a track hit and then a side hull penetration, and was abandoned.

OK, so maybe 100m is too far. Perhaps all the Soviet anecdotal reports that, to be sure of killing a Tiger or a Ferdinand SP gun (which also had 82mm side armor), you have to wait until point blank range, are all lies.

To determine whether that was the case, I reduced the range to 50m. The relative positions of the German vehicles to the Soviet cannon were unchanged.

After one minute of firing, 7 hits on the Tiger, all ricochets, no damage to the Tiger.

After one minute of firing, 7 hits on the StuG, all ricochets, no damage to the StuG. Despite my cover arc instructions to the StuG it opens fire on the 76mm with its machine gun and kills a 76mm crewman.

I would call those results solid evidence that the 50mm + 30mm front of the StuG, and the 82mm armor of the Tiger I, is absolutely invulnerable to Soviet 76mm AP. Period.

So it appears my memory hasn't failed yet. CMBB in fact does not allow the 76mm Soviet gun (assuming no sub-caliber munitions of course) to harm German armor 80mm armor or greater, at any range.

I am now even more curious as to how you arrived at a very different conclusion, to wit and I quote you again: In the game, when I test StuGs against T34s, I find the StuGs tough opponents. They are killable, in extremis from 500 meters, but much better from closer ranges.

What is your secret? I can't get my T-34s to do anything like that.

Moving right along, let's just see if we can find some information on how the Soviet 76mm cannon performed against German 80 - 82mm armor. You said such evidence is in short supply, but like the test of the CMBB engine. My experience differs.

First, here is another essay by Valery Potapov. I would suggest pay attention to the middle of the article, where he states clearly that Soviet standards of calculating armor penetration were more rigorous – not less, more – than German. I mention this because it means that, if one looks at a Soviet armor penetration calculation and the expected penetration is in the 70mm - 80mm range, then we might well expect the penetration to take place if that standard were transfered to the simulator.

If however the Soviet penetration values were transfered into a computer wargame also using western penetration values, and there was not an adjustment in the computer wargame for the more rigorous definition of "penetration" by the Soviets, then you would have an apples and oranges situation: a Soviet penetration value would be somewhat underrated, as compared to the western penetration values.

That's just food for thought. Here's the Potapov essay.

http://www.battlefield.ru/ru/articles/347-projectile-armor.html?start=1

OK, next let's see if there is any primary evidence on the subject. You say that evidence is in short supply as well. Again, my experience differs.

Here are serveral links from a single book entitled “Ya dralsa s panzervaffe”. The book is an anthology of several interviews of war veterans compiled by the Russian researcher Artem Drabkin. The war veterans, to a man, served in Red Army anti-tank troops. More than a few of them were members of ZiS-3 crew.

One would expect that a man whose job it was during WW2 to fight and destroy German tanks with a ZiS-3 would want to have a fairly good understanding of what a Soviet 76mm cannon could and could not do to the various armored vehicles the German fielded.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/drabkin_ay4/01.html – Account of 76mm gunner Vitaly Ulianov. 92nd Rifle Division. Ulianov describes an April 1943 incident when generals prior battle check with crew to see if crew knows how to take out a Tiger, and they know the answer: wait until it gets very close, then hit it in the flank. Ulianov later describes destroying a “very large tank” at the tip of a panzerkeil, whose turret is undamaged from a frontal hit at close range (less than 500m) by his 76mm cannon, but is set on fire from a penetrating hit to the turret side.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/drabkin_ay4/02.html - Account of Nikolai Markov, 76mm gunner, 163rd Separate Tank Destroyer Regiment. In July 1944 is in action near the Ukrainian town Kovel, fires on and destroys a German StuG SP gun at a range of approximately 600m. (The StuG is described in the account as a “Ferdinand”, which was Red Army slang for German SP gun.)

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/drabkin_ay4/09.html - Account of Mikhail Chernomordik, 76mm battery commander, 640th Separate Tank Destroyer Regiment. Describes how Tiger is only vulnerable to 76mm at close range, and that the standard tactic to use against them was “with several guns at once from a range of 100 – 400 meters.” Further, he states a standard German tactic was to have Tigers stand off at 700 – 800m, attempt to draw fire, and then destroy whatever Soviet AT weapon that opened up.

Chernomordik's “most frightening incident” of the entire war took place at the Sandomirz bridgehead (i.e., Poland July-August 1944) when a group of eight Tiger tanks advanced directly on his battery, and he had to hold fire until they exposed a flank, allowing the a 76mm fired by the battalion commander to destroy a single Tiger at 300 meters' range. During the ensuing firefight the remaining Tigers destroyed the battery, killed most of the crew, and put adjacent Red infantry to flight. A Red air strike them bombed the survivors, and the Tigers, indiscriminately. I have been reading accounts like this for years, and in my judgment Chernomordik's account has an absolute ring of truth.

I could go on, there are hundreds if not thousands of accounts of Red Army veterans accessible on the web, and that's not counting television recollections and books. World War Two is not forgotten in the former Soviet Union, it is a popular topic, and the literature is huge. Glasnost' ended propaganda-based WW2 history in the former Soviet Union by 1990 or so, it is now 20 years later. If one is interested in primary accounts from the Red Army side of the Second World War, it is readily available.

I would be delighted, I mean just thrilled to death, if you or any one else could for instance find me a first-hand recollection of a StuG or a Tiger I resisting Soviet 76mm fire as I managed to get those vehicles to do in my little test above. I am lucky enough to read German, but unfortunately so far I have never run across something like that.

Of course, there will always be some who denigrate first-hand accounts, particularly those of Soviet war veterans. Some believe that what the guys who were there recall, is less reliable as a basis for building a WW2 East Front combat simulator, than algorithms based on a perceived understanding of anti-tank shells and steel armor manufactured some 60-70 years ago.

For some interested in the subject of WW2 East Front warfare, it is possible to ignore the people who actually were there in favor of pleasant assumptions, like for instance that German 82mm armor had some kind of magic ability to resist Soviet 76mm AP shells, or perhaps that Soviet 76mm AP shells, although on paper possibly capable of punching through that armor, did not do so during the war because Soviet manufacturing standards were poor.

For people unwilling to accept the words of the first-hand accounts, I offer this small piece of visual evidence:

That looks to me very much like the side of a Tiger I turret that took something like 6 – 8 hits from Soviet 76mm AP, and in real life, at least one of them punched right through, and about 3-4 more hammered the armor hard enough to crack it or partially punch through, meaning a fair chance of something unpleasant happening on the inside.

Try doing that in CMBB. In the game, German armor 80mm and greater is impervious to Soviet 76mm AP. At any range. That ain't the way it was in real life.

[ArgusEye]

Argueseye,

Must I write the essay again? Suits me, every time I do this essay more Russian-language Internet evidence piles up to undermine the panzer fanboys.

I'm no fanboy of anything. A bit sad to resort to such ad hominems.

Second, I found part of your last remarks rather curious. You said:

In the game, when I test StuGs against T34s, I find the StuGs tough opponents. They are killable, in extremis from 500 meters, but much better from closer ranges; but never do they become easy kills. A good amount of hits is necessary. This matches what I read about the measures taken against these things. The 50+30 should perform worse than it does, but I find it hard to say the same about the 80mm fronts.

That is not my experience with CMBB. But then I am getting old, perhaps I have forgotten how these engagements play out when one tests them in an actual scenario.

So for the umpteenth time, let's benchmark how CMBB simulates Soviet 76mm AP and German 82mm plate, and German 50mm + 30mm plate armor.

For this test, I used CMBB with the 1.03 patch. I created a scenario with two Soviet ZiS-3 76mm cannon, regular, each loaded out with 20 rounds of AP. They were in a scattered woods line. The time of the scenario was June 1943, daylight, no precipitation.

I picked June 1943 using the logic Soviet ammo would have been fairly reliable by that time. Lend Lease (the source of approximately half of the explosives used by the Soviets in the war) had been in operation for a year and a half. The Soviet munitions factories had been transported to the Urals, had been operating unhindered for 6 – 9 months.

Don't worry, the 76mm ammunition problems are not even modeled in CMBB.

Opposite one of the 76mm cannon, I set up a veteran Tiger I directly opposite, rear of the Tiger facing the ZiS-5, range 200 meters. I removed all ammo from the Tiger, and buttoned it.

Opposite the other 76mm cannon, I set up a veteran StuG assault gun with the 50+30 front. The StuG was facing the ZiS-3, also at 200 meters.

There's your problem: the 50+30 is mismodeled.

[...]

So it appears my memory hasn't failed yet. CMBB in fact does not allow the 76mm Soviet gun (assuming no sub-caliber munitions of course) to harm German armor 80mm armor or greater, at any range.

I am now even more curious as to how you arrived at a very different conclusion, to wit and I quote you again: In the game, when I test StuGs against T34s, I find the StuGs tough opponents. They are killable, in extremis from 500 meters, but much better from closer ranges.

What is your secret? I can't get my T-34s to do anything like that.

I don't do anything special. I just allow the T34s to kill the StuGs. It might take more than ten shots sometimes, but they all die.

Moving right along, let's just see if we can find some information on how the Soviet 76mm cannon performed against German 80 - 82mm armor. You said such evidence is in short supply, but like the test of the CMBB engine. My experience differs.

First, here is another essay by Valery Potapov. I would suggest pay attention to the middle of the article, where he states clearly that Soviet standards of calculating armor penetration were more rigorous – not less, more – than German. I mention this because it means that, if one looks at a Soviet armor penetration calculation and the expected penetration is in the 70mm - 80mm range, then we might well expect the penetration to take place if that standard were transfered to the simulator.

which is odd, because what he writes (here and elsewhere) is at odds with Krupps own test methods. Read up on the Krause papers, or the Gercke and Kratz reports. In excellent level of detail do they explain how German armour testing was performed.

OK, next let's see if there is any primary evidence on the subject. You say that evidence is in short supply as well. Again, my experience differs.

[...]

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/drabkin_ay4/01.html – Account of 76mm gunner Vitaly Ulianov. 92nd Rifle Division. Ulianov describes an April 1943 incident when generals prior battle check with crew to see if crew knows how to take out a Tiger, and they know the answer: wait until it gets very close, then hit it in the flank. Ulianov later describes destroying a “very large tank” at the tip of a panzerkeil, whose turret is undamaged from a frontal hit at close range (less than 500m) by his 76mm cannon, but is set on fire from a penetrating hit to the turret side.

He talks of penetrating a Panther side from 50 meters. I can believe that. What does that prove? And The officers don't ask him how he can take out a Panther or Tiger, they ask him about its vulnerabilities. And of course he knows these; I quote the pamphlet in an earlier post.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/drabkin_ay4/02.html - Account of Nikolai Markov, 76mm gunner, 163rd Separate Tank Destroyer Regiment. In July 1944 is in action near the Ukrainian town Kovel, fires on and destroys a German StuG SP gun at a range of approximately 600m. (The StuG is described in the account as a “Ferdinand”, which was Red Army slang for German SP gun.)

He doesn't state the aspect, nor the range by the time he fires. And is this ammunition subcaliber?

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/drabkin_ay4/09.html - Account of Mikhail Chernomordik, 76mm battery commander, 640th Separate Tank Destroyer Regiment. Describes how Tiger is only vulnerable to 76mm at close range, and that the standard tactic to use against them was “with several guns at once from a range of 100 – 400 meters.” Further, he states a standard German tactic was to have Tigers stand off at 700 – 800m, attempt to draw fire, and then destroy whatever Soviet AT weapon that opened up.

Chernomordik's “most frightening incident” of the entire war took place at the Sandomirz bridgehead (i.e., Poland July-August 1944) when a group of eight Tiger tanks advanced directly on his battery, and he had to hold fire until they exposed a flank, allowing the a 76mm fired by the battalion commander to destroy a single Tiger at 300 meters' range. During the ensuing firefight the remaining Tigers destroyed the battery, killed most of the crew, and put adjacent Red infantry to flight. A Red air strike them bombed the survivors, and the Tigers, indiscriminately. I have been reading accounts like this for years, and in my judgment Chernomordik's account has an absolute ring of truth.

This man seems to know what he's talking about, I agree. He doesn't say, however, that the Tiger is vulnerable to his gun at 400 meters: 'А «тигры» надо бить сразу из нескольких орудий с расстояния 100–150 метров.'

I could go on, there are hundreds if not thousands of accounts of Red Army veterans accessible on the web, and that's not counting television recollections and books. World War Two is not forgotten in the former Soviet Union, it is a popular topic, and the literature is huge. Glasnost' ended propaganda-based WW2 history in the former Soviet Union by 1990 or so, it is now 20 years later. If one is interested in primary accounts from the Red Army side of the Second World War, it is readily available.

The problem with eyewitness accounts is that they are not so reliable. I have personally read memoirs of pilots claiming to have blown up Tigers with .50 caliber machine guns, memoirs claiming blowing up T26s by throwing loose dirt into the air intakes, killing tanks with a bazooka by aiming by ear through thick mist, fighter pilots reporting kills on days the other side didn't have any losses in the entire sector, killing Shermans in 1941, and any number of silly claims. This is not meant to be a lie by the claimant, but a single subjective perspective is always skewed. That's why experiment and meaningful testing is an expensive, tiring chore.

I would be delighted, I mean just thrilled to death, if you or any one else could for instance find me a first-hand recollection of a StuG or a Tiger I resisting Soviet 76mm fire as I managed to get those vehicles to do in my little test above. I am lucky enough to read German, but unfortunately so far I have never run across something like that.

Such claims exist, but they are anecdotal. You could try to have a look at the Soviet actual firing tests of 20 april 1943. There a very clear picture emerges.

Of course, there will always be some who denigrate first-hand accounts, particularly those of Soviet war veterans. Some believe that what the guys who were there recall, is less reliable as a basis for building a WW2 East Front combat simulator, than algorithms based on a perceived understanding of anti-tank shells and steel armor manufactured some 60-70 years ago.

One does not need to denigrate to disbelieve anything. And I'll take well-performed tests of 50-70 years ago above any remembrance.

For some interested in the subject of WW2 East Front warfare, it is possible to ignore the people who actually were there in favor of pleasant assumptions, like for instance that German 82mm armor had some kind of magic ability to resist Soviet 76mm AP shells, or perhaps that Soviet 76mm AP shells, although on paper possibly capable of punching through that armor, did not do so during the war because Soviet manufacturing standards were poor.

That argument works equally well the other way around. The magic ability of the inspired Soviet shells to overcome crappy manufacture to lance through Fascist armour. It is not an argument.

For people unwilling to accept the words of the first-hand accounts, I offer this small piece of visual evidence:

That looks to me very much like the side of a Tiger I turret that took something like 6 – 8 hits from Soviet 76mm AP, and in real life, at least one of them punched right through, and about 3-4 more hammered the armor hard enough to crack it or partially punch through, meaning a fair chance of something unpleasant happening on the inside.

Not really supportive of your point, is it? Many, many impacts, and it is unclear what, if anything, went through. It is clear however, that the Russian gunners didn't feel that the first round did the trick. I will believe that it is 76mm, I will even believe that the 76mm killed that Tiger, and even that it did so by hits on the turret. But it shows that it takes a lot of hits. Like in CMBB.

Try doing that in CMBB. In the game, German armor 80mm and greater is impervious to Soviet 76mm AP. At any range. That ain't the way it was in real life.

Partial penetrations and weak point penetrations kill. And I have yet to see any evidence that the 76mm is truly undermodeled.

[stikkypixie]

I don't do anything special. I just allow the T34s to kill the StuGs. It might take more than ten shots sometimes, but they all die.

Just out of curiosity, do they die as in "a big hole in the front" or die as in the crew decides to bail out because of immobilization, etc... but the plate still holds? (Not counting weak point penetrations of course)

[Vark]

Yes it is pretty clear how many rounds penetrated the turret side, the holes with clear black circles indicate a penetration to the fighting compartment. What is not clear are the conditions, at which the 'engagement' took place, nor the ammo used, though the smaller penetrations seem to be sub-calibre rounds and the holes are consistent with 76mm projectiles. What is also not clear are the total number of rounds fired at the whole tank.

In the end the real villain of the piece is the very basic damage model used when the quite complex penetration computations are calculated. It will be very interesting to see if the Tiger 1/Stug will be as popular beasts when the CMSF modular damage simulations are used for the CM II. Tigers on the Eastern front were rarely destroyed by a single shot but instead died a death of a dozen or so partial penetrations, to mangle a famous phrase. German accounts of Tiger tankers are replete with stories of ; vision blocks damaged, blinded crews, partially or fully collapsed suspensions, damaged powerpacks/drive trains, KO'd electrics (forcing the turret to be traversed painfully slowly), radios, recuperators etc. The list is as endless as the items that can fail after sustaining damage from the shock of impact. All of this is impossible to simulate, apart from the crude metrics of ; mobility/firepower kils, KO's, both catastrophic and total and the shocked crew result.

There was a reason Tiger crews were wary of the Soviet Pak fronts, they were often invisible until they fired, allowing regular flank shots from multiple guns. Try simulating that in CMBB, you will be lucky to get a damaged gun or imobilisation, I have just finished a Tigers v's pak front simulation July 43 and if it represented reality I cannot see why the Tiger crews paid the 76mm much respect. In reality the Russians just needed to damage the Tigers so they could not achieve their mission, which is why coils of barbed wire were avoided by Tiger crews. Before these first-hand accounts are dismissed in favour of sterile testing, remember that Tiger crews feared the Paks for a reason, or is that just going to be rejected as just exaggerations of the danger to appear braver than they were! Or was it a subjective error and they never were in any danger, though account after account says they were. There are many pitfalls in such logical positivist approaches when we dismiss first hand-accounts as intrinsically unreliable.

[rune]

just a point of order, you start out by using ammo from 1943. From the web site you yourself reference:

http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-armaments/98-supplemental-information/355-specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html

"Also, it is important to understand that realistic penetration values in 1941–1943 was reduced significantly due to low quality ammo."

Rune

[undead reindeer cavalry]

So is 85 mm OK or not in CMBB ?

no, initial AP ammo is a bit ineffective.

i'd dare to speculate that both the StuG 30+50 plate and the Soviet 85mm and 76mm ammo that are in the game are modelled quite OK.

the problem is caused by the way the game has abstracted the considerable weak points of the StuG front. the other part of the problem is that the game doesn't have the more rare & powerful Soviet ammo types (i.e. ones tailored specifically to deal with things like Tiger I armor). when you combine these two you get the impossibility to recreate some historical results.

the problem with these discussions is the apples & oranges nature. e.g. Tiger I side armor is nothing like StuG 30+50 front, even if by mm they seem similar. very different armor in many ways. in similar way there are considerable differences between different Soviet AT ammo of same calibre. all the possible combinations create different kind of penetration situations that aren't comparable.