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

[Bigduke6]

Arguseye,

I think our differences could do with some summing up.

1. How CMBB actually models the engagments:

I've run a controlled CMBB test where I wound up firing 20+ 76mm AP rounds at the 50mm + 30mm front of a StuG, and 20+ 76mm AP rounds at the 82mm armor of a Tiger I. In my test, I obtained obtained zero penetrations, and zero partial penetrations. I say that's proof the game engine simulates 80mm or greater German armor as invulnerable to Soviet 76mm AP.

You say your experience is different, for StuGs it's a matter of, and I quote, "firing more than 10 rounds."

2. The validity of historical armor penetration testing and computations:

You say you trust them over eyewitness reports.

I say, wars are not fought in ballistics laboratories, and further, using data generated by a ballistics laboratory at the exclusion of other information sources is a lousy way to evaluate history.

3. Does CMBB give Soviet ammo take a "crap quality" hit prior to 1944?

You say it doesn't. I say it obviously does.

(Rune seems to be hinting broadly it does.)

4. Are Soviet eyewitness accounts contradicting the effectiveness of Sovet 76mm as simulated in CMBB, specifically that the accounts are unanimous that the Soviets considered 76mm effective agains Tiger I at very close ranges, a valid criticism of the simulator?

You say no because it is possible to find an anecdote supporting anything. I say yes, because when you get enough eyewitnesses saying the same thing, that counts as a very probable fact.

5. Are there German accounts supporting CMBB's simulation of German 80-82mm armor as absolutely invulnerable to Soviet 76mm AP, even in 1943, even down to 50m range? Is there anything out there to contradict the Soviet accounts?

I say, I've never heard of a such an account, I've looked for years, and I read German. You say such accounts exist.

6. Do we accept a picture of a Tiger I turret with a 76mm holes in it as a valid criticism of CMBB's modeling of the 76mm AT round?

I say a picture from the Kursk battlefield (check the link's source) of 76mm holes in the side of a Tiger turret, is proof positive that CMBB fails to model this particular engagement accurately, it can't happen in the game, and it did happen at Kursk.

You maintain the fact that actual Soviets had to fire several rounds at the Tiger's side turret, is in fact replicated in CMBB when a CMBB 76mm fires on a CMBB Tiger I for, and I quote, "Partial penetrations and weak point penetrations kill. And I have yet to see any evidence that the 76mm is truly undermodeled."

Is that a fair evaluation of our differences?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Duke,

the problem with eyewitness accounts is that they are usually too vague about important details. they are important of course, especially if we don't have better information.

for example if we know from repeated field trial results that round X1 does not penetrate plate Y, and we know that round X2 does penetrate plate Y, we should be inclined to reason that a report of round X (X1, X2 or X3, we don't know) penetrating plate Y reports the use of a round X variant that is something other than X1. thus just because of a report of round X we should not insist that round X1 should penetrate plate Y in the game.

what's more is that when we talk about something like "StuG IIIG upper front hull armor" we are talking about something that didn't exist as a single plate.

[Bigduke6]

URC,

It is just as possible to critique the validity of field trials. There are plenty of variables, in my opinion right along the same range of reliability as a participant account. it's just that when the results of the variables are listed on a page as nice neat numbers, some people think the numbers are more valid data than the account of a war veteran.

Let's look at what went into the data that CM uses, generally speaking, to determine AP shell performance vs. armored plate.

As I understand it - and some one correct me if I'm wrong - BFI used the actual numbers generated by the armies at the time. For instance, if the historical Wehrmacht weapons performance numbers assumed a 75mm shell would overcome 90mm plate at a 30 degree angle at 800 meters' range, then that is exactly how BFI programmed the game, so it would produce that result.

That is great, that is brilliant historical research, and one of the reasons why I consider CM and CMBB especially to be the best computer wargame ever, period.

But that is not the same thing as saying, that approach always provides results matching the actual historical record.

The easiest problem to point at is the one we have been beating in these forums all these years: There is tons of evidence during the war both sides considered Soviet 76mm capable of overcoming German 80-82mm armor at very close ranges; particularly by 1943 onwards (Kursk, after all) but in the game German 80-82mm armor is for practical immune to the Soviet 76mm.

Why the disconnect? There is of course the possibility that all the anecdotal evidence is meaningless, and that for instance Soviet veterans saying the 76mm cannon was effective against say the side turret of a Tiger I at very close range, are just old guys that are either senile or lied to the interviewer.

But if we are to be honest and clear-minded about our historical research, we also have to consider the possibility the weapons performance data numbers are not perfect.

Do we know -

- How much of the weapons performance data was the result of actual gun vs. metal tests at a firing range, and how much was mathematical extrapolation?

- To what degree a sides' mathematically-extrapolated weapons performance numbers accurately reflected actual battlefield performance?

- When shell performance was in fact tested on a firing range, was the steel plate similar in all instances?

- To what degree shells used in the testing, differed from shells used in combat?

- To what degree subsequent shell strikes caused armor eventually to fail?

- To what degree the effect of subsequent shells strikes, was factored into the historical weapons performance data?

- To what degree the metal plate used in the weapons performance testing, differed from the metal plate struck by shells in combat?

- When weapons performance was either calculated or tested, to what degree did differing standards of "penetration" between German and Soviet testing (the Soviets had a more rigorous definition) skew weapons performance numbers as compared between German and Soviet weapons?

(This last could very be at the bottom of sometimes anemic Soviet weapons performance in CMBB. If BFI when developing CMBB used Soviet historical weapons performance numbers, and German historical weapons performance numbers, and did not adjust for the difference between the German and Soviet definition of "penetration/armor failure" then there very well could be the simple mathematical explanation for Soviet 76mm punching holes in the sides of 1943 Tigers at close range in WW2, but never in CMBB. But that's just me speculating.)

Unless we have answers to all of those questions (and probably others, I'm far from a weapons performance expert) we cannot fully trust historical weapons performance data as the basis of a WW2 East Front computer wargame.

Unless we have answers to most of those questions, we lack grounds to trust those numbers inherently, to consider them as the final arbiter of what we conclude to have been the historical reality, if other sources of information - like specifically, the accounts of the soldiers who were there - available to us.

Certainly we can use WW2 historical weapons performance data, and certainly it is valuable, but to use it at the exclusion of the rest of the WW2 historical record, and to denigrate all other sources of information about combat at the time; well that is sloppy military history - as I am sure you would agree.

If we set ourselves the goal of figuring out how gun-to-armor engagements went during WW2, then to my mind, the only approach is multiple source research. You gather as much information you can, you make your best judgement on the relative value of the information, and you make your best educated guess.

I believe CMBB does a fantastic job, overall, of replicating East Front armored warfare. But there are imperfections, and one of them is that for most of the war, particularly the mid-war period, Soviet 76mm is flat unable to take on German 80 - 82mm plate, at any range.

When the evidence is extremely strong (to my mind it is overwhelming) that at close range, during the actual war, 76mm did just that.

[rune]

Several more points of order.

Battlefront does not use the data from reports german/russian/american or otherwise. Charles uses a formula which takes into account ammo type, armor type, materials, etc. There are no tables for penetration.

Remember CMBB is several years old, I don't remember 100%, but I believe the ammo low quality was indeed factored in. Valera from the Russian Battlefield site was invited at my request and was a beta tester, and his input was used.

Reminds me of the infamous sharpnel round debate.

Rune

[undead reindeer cavalry]

But there are imperfections, and one of them is that for most of the war, particularly the mid-war period, Soviet 76mm is flat unable to take on German 80 - 82mm plate, at any range.

When the evidence is extremely strong (to my mind it is overwhelming) that at close range, during the actual war, 76mm did just that.

my whole point is that there is no German 80 - 82mm plate just like there is no Soviet 76mm shell. it's far more nuanced than that.

[ArgusEye]

Every time I post here, I try to have some fresh research to further the discussion. This in order to bring some more factual perspective to answer the original question. And I'm beginning to wonder why.

When I arrange Tiger I's in CMBB to be ass-on to T34M43's, in ranges below 300 meters, with the Tigers dry, 10 out of 12 Tigers are killed before they can turn their heavy front armour toward the T34s. Immobilisations helped in three cases. The Tigers are -predictably- safe when the T34 is outside of the Kleeblatt, but their hide is pierced with a mix of three partial penetrations to one full penetration when the square-on aspects are attacked. When they cower it gets worse, because they tend to present flank and rear.

Despite lengthy research since my latest post, I've failed to find any new evidence throwing more light on the issue. Some more of the same is the only stuff I could dig up.

In answer to Bigduke6:

1. How CMBB actually models the engagments:

I've run a controlled CMBB test where I wound up firing 20+ 76mm AP rounds at the 50mm + 30mm front of a StuG, and 20+ 76mm AP rounds at the 82mm armor of a Tiger I. In my test, I obtained obtained zero penetrations, and zero partial penetrations. I say that's proof the game engine simulates 80mm or greater German armor as invulnerable to Soviet 76mm AP.

The 50+30 is broken. You know that. And as to the Tiger, I posted my experiences above.

2. The validity of historical armor penetration testing and computations:

You say you trust them over eyewitness reports.

I say, wars are not fought in ballistics laboratories, and further, using data generated by a ballistics laboratory at the exclusion of other information sources is a lousy way to evaluate history.

Under your point 1, you did a controlled test. Isn't that a lousy way? Much better to ask somebody who played the game at some point in time how he remembers it. Sorry for being facetious, but I think that point is made.

3. Does CMBB give Soviet ammo take a "crap quality" hit prior to 1944?

You say it doesn't. I say it obviously does.

I say it is not wronged by its modeling. The ammunition was, by all accounts, pretty bad historically. The game models this in a rather black and white way, perhaps; but I cannot altogether know whether this is correct or not from the information I have b been able to find.

4. Are Soviet eyewitness accounts contradicting the effectiveness of Sovet 76mm as simulated in CMBB, specifically that the accounts are unanimous that the Soviets considered 76mm effective agains Tiger I at very close ranges, a valid criticism of the simulator?You say no because it is possible to find an anecdote supporting anything. I say yes, because when you get enough eyewitnesses saying the same thing, that counts as a very probable fact.

They give far too little detail, far too little context, far too little substance, far too little certainty. Both fact and urban myths are commonly known, and the latter category makes a lot better story to most people.

5. Are there German accounts supporting CMBB's simulation of German 80-82mm armor as absolutely invulnerable to Soviet 76mm AP, even in 1943, even down to 50m range? Is there anything out there to contradict the Soviet accounts?

Yes. Read Jentz' books on the Panzerwaffe for many anecdotes, some of which state exactly that. They're very likely untrue. Read Carius' memoirs. He never says he's invulnerable to anything, but he speaks of point blank 76 fire bouncing off his flanks.

I say, I've never heard of a such an account, I've looked for years, and I read German. You say such accounts exist.

6. Do we accept a picture of a Tiger I turret with a 76mm holes in it as a valid criticism of CMBB's modeling of the 76mm AT round?

I say a picture from the Kursk battlefield (check the link's source) of 76mm holes in the side of a Tiger turret, is proof positive that CMBB fails to model this particular engagement accurately, it can't happen in the game, and it did happen at Kursk.

I don't know whether that attribution is correct. I don't know that was a 76mm. I don't know which 76mm. I don't know which ammo. I don't know anything about that picture. And they are notorious for misattribution. Proof positive, it is not.

You maintain the fact that actual Soviets had to fire several rounds at the Tiger's side turret, is in fact replicated in CMBB when a CMBB 76mm fires on a CMBB Tiger I for, and I quote, "Partial penetrations and weak point penetrations kill. And I have yet to see any evidence that the 76mm is truly undermodeled."

Is that a fair evaluation of our differences?

Somewhat. Let me reciprocate:

- Do you claim that the memory of old soldiers trumps intricate field and laboratory testing? By both sides?

- Do you claim that the anecdotes you quote are proof positive? Because I have a (verified) anecdote of a Tiger I resisting a 122mm shot from an IS II at point blank range (35m). Would you take that as representative fact, or as proof positive of anything at all? I don't.

- Are you suggesting that there weren't ammunition problems with the 85mm?

- Are you suggesting that the ZIS-3 was able to handle 80mm at full combat range (according to Soviet AT doctrine)? And if so, why did the Soviets not just blast the Germans to bits so much earlier, given the concomitant tactical advantages?

- Would you disdain Red Army leaflets, stating to the troopers manning these guns that to shoot at the armoured sides and rear of the Tiger I should be neglected in favour of the running gear, gun, and sight ports? I quoted such in an earlier post.

- Would you explain the Soviets going to some lengths to gain short range sideshots on 'ArtShturms' with the 76 if they could just knock it out from longer range or the front?

I will further answer a few questions you list:

Do we know -

- How much of the weapons performance data was the result of actual gun vs. metal tests at a firing range, and how much was mathematical extrapolation?

Yes, in very many cases we know that in detail.

- To what degree a sides' mathematically-extrapolated weapons performance numbers accurately reflected actual battlefield performance?

Yes. Only the Germans tell this in detail, the Western allies are less verbose.

- When shell performance was in fact tested on a firing range, was the steel plate similar in all instances?

It wasn't. That makes some shoots difficult to judge, but most err on the side of safety.

- To what degree shells used in the testing, differed from shells used in combat?

In the German case, we know. They used experimental and production rounds, and always note which. In the British and American case, also. They use production rounds only. The Russians are less clear, but they seem to use specially fabricated testing rounds, but my sources for that are very vague.

- To what degree subsequent shell strikes caused armor eventually to fail?

Massaging armour works, as long as deep impacts are achieved. This is not modeled in CMBB.

- To what degree the effect of subsequent shells strikes, was factored into the historical weapons performance data?

I don't understand this question.

- To what degree the metal plate used in the weapons performance testing, differed from the metal plate struck by shells in combat?

Well known. The records are quite clear on this.

- When weapons performance was either calculated or tested, to what degree did differing standards of "penetration" between German and Soviet testing (the Soviets had a more rigorous definition) skew weapons performance numbers as compared between German and Soviet weapons?

Russians were not more rigorous. I don't know where this idea comes from. I can't tell if the Russian definitions bandied about are correct, I can't get the appropriate books. What is generally held about the German tests is untrue, that is easily verified from the Gercke and Kratz papers.

[jtcm2]

This is very interesting, and I don't have a dog in this fight either way-- except to ask if CMBB is realistic or not. Everyone seems to agree that the StuG with 50+30 front is not well simulated.

Points of disagreement seem to be:

-is CMBB right to show 85mm ammo as not terribly good in 1943 ?

-is CMBB right to show Tiger front and side as pretty invulnerable to 76 mm ? (if I get this right)

[ArgusEye]

I made a stupid mistake in my previous post: Where I wrote

Would you explain the Soviets going to some lengths to gain short range sideshots on 'ArtShturms' with the 76 if they could just knock it out from longer range or the front?

I mixed up two thoughts. I meant that the 76 went for side shots at the StuGs, and short range side shots at the Tiger I. I should know better than to write quicker than I think...

[jtcm2]

I'm sorry to butt in as an ignoramus. I always assumed that CMBB had undermodelled 85 mm and 76 mm, because of wrong design choices, perhaps determined by a soft spot for German armour ("German science" as JasonC says).

It seems to me that ArgusEye is not a fanboy (too often newbies come onto the forum and exult in German armour), not a player who akes pleasure in driving heavy cats around-- but bases his claim on sources-- namely that the Soviet stuff wasn't that good, actually, and that CMBB does represent this well. This has real consequences-- for how CMBB represents and simulates reality, for what players can do, for playing styles, etc.

JasonC and BigDuke6 stick to their guns-- and also adduce sources. I'd like to know the truth-- and try to understand the arguments.

[Bigduke6]

Arguseye,

Now we are getting somewhere.

It seems the results of your tests of the engine differ from mine. I'll check again. It is curious that your test results differ so much from mine.

If any one out there wants to do a control test, please chime in!

As to the validity or no of a picture of a Tiger I side with a 76mm hole through it, all I can say is it comes from a Russian-language web site devoted to the Battle of Kursk, and that it sure looks like 76mm holes to me, just like the web site says.

If you choose to interpet the photograph differently, you're welcome. If you have an alternate interpetation of what that is a picture of, I'm curious.

As to your questions:

Do you claim that the memory of old soldiers trumps intricate field and laboratory testing? By both sides?

Yes.

Of course, I add the qualification that the memories of old soldiers, and indeed of participants who recorded their memories more recently after the event, need to be considered in aggregate, rather than as individual nuggets of the unvarnished truth. If the weight of evidence, in this case what the participants say they saw, points in a certain direction, then that's what you judge the historical reality to have been. It is not a perfect approach, but for getting at historical accuracy it is better than an inherently imperfect laboratory test or computer modeling.

Do you claim that the anecdotes you quote are proof positive? Because I have a (verified) anecdote of a Tiger I resisting a 122mm shot from an IS II at point blank range (35m). Would you take that as representative fact, or as proof positive of anything at all? I don't.

Inherently, no anecdote in and of itself is not proof positive. But if I were aware of dozens if not hundreds of incidents of a Tiger I resisting a 122mm at point blank range, then I would certainly expect that possibility to be built into a CMBB engine.

By the way, there are also lots of anecdotes out there where Stalin II crewmen recall that an effective way of putting even a thick-skinned German tank out of action, was hitting it with a 122mm HE shell. The logic was that the explosion was so big it caused mechanical failures inside the panzer's armor, without pentrating it. Sounds reasonable to me. How about to you?

- Are you suggesting that the ZIS-3 was able to handle 80mm at full combat range (according to Soviet AT doctrine)? And if so, why did the Soviets not just blast the Germans to bits so much earlier, given the concomitant tactical advantages?

I am insisting that a basic tenet of Soviet AT doctrine, which was built on the capacities of ZiS-3, was to wait until the Tiger I approached to close range, and then hit it in the flank.

My frustration with CMBB is that, fantastic game that it is, this is not possible - at least in the CMBB games that I have played.

- Would you disdain Red Army leaflets, stating to the troopers manning these guns that to shoot at the armoured sides and rear of the Tiger I should be neglected in favour of the running gear, gun, and sight ports? I quoted such in an earlier post.

That is intriguing, I actually recall seeing a hand-out essentially instructing Red Army gunners to wait for the Tiger to approach to close range, and THEN hit it in the flank, and of course the running gear too.

We should of course remember that there were different types of Soviet AT, and targeting instructions for a PTR gunner were necessarily different from instructions for a ZiS-3 gunner.

Can you perhaps provide a link to the leaflet?

- Would you explain the Soviets going to some lengths to gain short range sideshots on 'ArtShturms' with the 76 if they could just knock it out from longer range or the front?

Certainly. The front of an ArtSturm SP gun was difficult for the 76mm to overcome at normal combat ranges, but the sides of the SP were easy for the 76mm to overcome at normal combat ranges. Therefore, it made sense for the Soviets to attempt to gain a flank shot on the ArtShturm SP, rather than hope it would approach to point blank range.

I have read plenty of accounts of Germans standing off at longer ranges in the - apparent - full knowledge of the shorter range at which Soviet fire became effective. Trying to get a flank shot on an ArtSturm with a 76mm seems to me to be rational behavior.

As to other stuff -

- If you wish to learn more about how the Soviets computed armor penetration expectations for their weapons, the Potapov article I provided the link to discusses this in detail. Here it is again:

http://www.battlefield.ru/ru/articles/347-projectile-armor.html

Moon graciously provided the link with the specific reference on how Soviet testing for predicted penetration was more rigorous than German, here again is the link:

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

The key bit is in the middle. According to Potapov, German AP munition testing defined "penetration" at 50 per cent of shells fired actually getting through the armor. The Soviet number was 75 per cent.

- I am aware Soviet munitions had quality problems early war, I have read account after account of lots of duds in the early period of the war, roughly June '41 to Stalingrad. That is, in my experience, not the case for the 1943 campaigns, i.e., Orel, Kursk, Dniepr, Korsun-Shevchenkovsky, etc.

This disconnect is I think only marginally relevant to the present discussion, as Moon has pointed out CMBB uses a formula rather than historical penetration values to determine AP munition effect.

The question here I think is why that forumula gives (admittedly what I believe to be ) ahistorical results when the Soviet 76mm gun engages German 82mm armor plate.

[Kineas]

Arguseye,

As to the validity or no of a picture of a Tiger I side with a 76mm hole through it, all I can say is it comes from a Russian-language web site devoted to the Battle of Kursk, and that it sure looks like 76mm holes to me, just like the web site says.

If you choose to interpet the photograph differently, you're welcome. If you have an alternate interpetation of what that is a picture of, I'm curious.

Erm....why so sure it's 76mm and not 85? Is the 11mm difference so obvious? Not that I take the 76mm ammo incapable of doing that damage, I'm just intrigued how you arrived at that conclusion.

I always thought this was a staged photo and it shows the result of a field test on a captured Tiger.

Back to the topic: the combat ineffectiveness of the Russian AFVs in the game is evident. (In that particular situation. Many considers the Russian side stronger in the overall game).

The penetration model (the formulas which use the historical penetration values) is close to reality, maybe on the pro-German side, but not much. The damage model however is a bit simple for nonpenetrating hits (though still more complex than in other wargames). Engine malfunctions, armor weakening, cumulative structural damage, spalling played a major role in actual combat than in the game, and this also skews the balance.

[Vark]

Now I'm confused! Just ran a play test with a Tiger v's two entrenched 76L 42's. Result a slaughter! One Pak was useless, the other scored three partial penetrations to the Tiger hull at 2-300m, both crews were regular. I then simulated a platoon attack of veteran Tigers v's a Pak front 12 Paks in a rhomboid formation covering roughly 800 square metres. Result, a slaughter, with two Tigers suffering mobility kills by a combination of AP/HEAT and HE and then being bailed and two Tigers suffering KO's (again partial upper hull penetrations).

When I looked at my initial result, posted previously, I noticed that this time I had only taken side shots when the side of the Tigers was at nearly a zero angle of deflection. Allowing the Tiger to present even a modest side angle and the Paks were far less effective, especially targeting the turret. Final point, although low velocity and less accurate the 76mm HEAT rounds had a high chance of a mobility kill (50%). The entrenched Paks were invisible to the Tiger till point blank range, and a dug in Maxim made sure most Tigers were buttoned regularly. So in reality, the Paks would die after 2-3 volleys but they would draw blood from the heavy armour at the tip of the wedge, just as the accounts suggest.

[Joachim]

I have read plenty of accounts of Germans standing off at longer ranges in the - apparent - full knowledge of the shorter range at which Soviet fire became effective. Trying to get a flank shot on an ArtSturm with a 76mm seems to me to be rational behavior.

Just standing off in itself is no evidence:

Any hit does damage. At least it wears out the armor. There might be weak points in the front, gun damage, track hit, whatever.

It is harder to outflank a StuG (with a yet unspotted gun/vehicle) and get side shots at favorable angles if it is further back.

Superior long range gunnery and penetration:

- My hit chance is reduced to 75% at long vs medium range while the enemy hits only half the time or even less

- My kill chance is still 100% if I hit while the risk of repairs due to of enemy fire is reduced from 50% to 25% if he hits and his chance of a pen go from "low" to "once in a blue moon"

I'd do the basic statistics and geometry (probably figured out by HQ in a manual) and go for long range anytime the enemy lets me.

What would you do? Just rely on some armor plate and close in if you don't need to?

[Joachim]

When I looked at my initial result, posted previously, I noticed that this time I had only taken side shots when the side of the Tigers was at nearly a zero angle of deflection. Allowing the Tiger to present even a modest side angle and the Paks were far less effective, especially targeting the turret. Final point, although low velocity and less accurate the 76mm HEAT rounds had a high chance of a mobility kill (50%). The entrenched Paks were invisible to the Tiger till point blank range, and a dug in Maxim made sure most Tigers were buttoned regularly. So in reality, the Paks would die after 2-3 volleys but they would draw blood from the heavy armour at the tip of the wedge, just as the accounts suggest.

Oops....

CMBB favors exact plans and tactics. Strict fire discipline. It is tough to plan, but it often works.

The employment of Tigers is a no-brainer to many. If you buy one Tiger as a lone tank then your armor is always concentrated. You spring your trap by bringing the only Tiger into a firing position. Using a lone Tiger is easy in CM.

The enemy can buy 2 or 3 T34s for the same amount points - but they are often spread out a bit. It is much harder to concentrate the firepower of the T34s and spring a trap with several tanks. You need timing and a good view of the battlefield. Which is hard in CM.

@BD6:

Remember Lauban J5/6? An exact Soviet plan, taking no gambles but only safe bets, strict fire discipline, coordinated weapons, picking single targets wherever their own overwatch did not work for them. Vark's example at a larger scale. The result were lots of dead German '44 era armor mostly dying from T34/85s and some ISU122s and at least a 2:1 kill rate. Chess on a CM map.

And if you actually did remember J5/6 - why? Because it was a normal battle? Or unusual? If a trap for Überarmor works, witnesses will remember it as outstanding. Those occasions that did not work will be "normal" (and see less Soviets live to tell)). Eye-witness accounts are biased by their own memory (psychological aspect)- and by numbers of people that live to tell (statistics).

Yet those 2 examples from Vark or me are no proof that CMBB's model is correct. They just weaken evidence claiming that the model is incorrect.

The actual "proof" on the model being off is the official comment above:

The model is a single formula, not a table. It is almost impossible that a single formula can model the real world which has so many variables in it. If the result of the formula is off just 5% at the worst point (which still means a rather good overall fit!) it might be the decisive millimeters ... from "low chance to kill" vs "none". Looks like 76mm gun vs 80mm armor is the most prominent point of being "off".

A nice war story on extreme statistical bias of "returners": The USAF wanted to up-armor its bombers and checked returning planes for bullet holes. Additional armor should be applied to areas that were hit hardest. According to the evaluation, the area around the fuel tanks needed no additional armor as almost none of the returning planes was hit there.

[Vark]

Just had two platoons of Tigers plus two companies of infantry, with 105mm support, attacking 8 76mm and a company of infantry backed up by tank hunters, AT rifles, MG's and 76mm, 122mm and 132mm support. The Paks got slaughtered because the borg spotting allowed a near instantaneous counter fire and the Tigers kept shifting position to engage targets of opportunity. On four occasions hidden Paks targeted stationary Tigers only to have the Tigers pivot in place, drive off and thus ruin their shots. Once a fire command is given that's it, the unit will take the shot whatever the chance of success, particularly annoying was the hidden pair of Paks who, having patiently waited, had a decent chance of hurting a Tiger. As soon as the guns were told to open fire the Tiger turned toward them to engage a fleeing infantry unit, in real life the gunners would not fire, and wait to see if it would present its side again. It did, but only after the guns who engaged the Tiger from the front were wiped out in seconds, frustrating firing at psychic commanders!

In the end one Tigers was bailed and one KO'd ( by a 122mm salvo and AT fire respectively), two had a crewman injured and one suffered a mobility kill. At first I thought the Tigers had got away lightly but on second thoughts although they punched through the AT strongpoint it cost them 25% losses in tanks and 30% in infantry. Although they had no supporting Stug/Pz IV's in support they also did not face the minefields, barbed wire and supporting flanking fires of adjoining strong points.

On a final note I remember that I read that the Russians calculated 5-6 of 76mm to KO a Pz IV and 12 for a Tiger. I cannot though remember where it came from but I do know it was in a paper on Russian Pak fronts with multiple guns under the command of one fire controller. The conclusion was that one AT regiment should savage the panzer formations, but then went on to detail why this rarely happened. I think it was an article in Military Review, about the importance of combined arms training as it mentioned the IDF's experience in 67-73, but cannot be certain.

[JasonC]

Put a 1944 T-34/76 with abundant T ammo (12, 15, plenty) 100 meters away from a buttoned Tiger I, exactly 90 degrees off its side facing, pointing directly at the Tiger, with a target order. Tiger has no previous awareness that the T-34 is there, is buttoned, etc. Perfect placement of the T-34, perfect year for the ammo, perfect ammo available - T - perfect tactical situation in every respect. If T-34s can kill Tigers by flank and close tactics, this is as good as it gets.

Hit go. I claim the Tiger I is favorite to kill the T-34 before the T-34 kills the Tiger, and by a large margin, 3 or 4 to 1. Yes the T-34 can kill it, even on the first shot sometimes. But if you repeat the trial, there will be many more dead T-34s than dead Tigers.

Sometimes the first shot will miss, despite the point blank range. Usually it will hit. Sometimes it will ricochet, rather ridiculously. Sometimes it will hit the track rather than anyplace potentially lethal. Sometimes it will partial penetrate (despite 20% overmatch or better, at point blank with T ammo etc), which reduces the behind armor effect by a lot. Many penetrations will report "no significant damage". Some will panic the Tiger crew but even on red internal morale it will continue to fight just fine. Sometimes a single crewman will be a casualty, but the same applies - it doesn't stop the thing.

And the Tiger will turn. The turret will rotate on the hull, and the hull will also rotate. The side angle increases immediately, faster for the turret of course, and the hull hits are only about half, with the rest split 2 to 1 between turret and track. The second shot has some chance despite side angle if it hits the hull, thanks to T ammo, but all of the previous still apply and the partials have increased, so the kill chance is lower than for the first round.

By the time the T-34 is ready for its third shot, the turret will be front aspect and the hull high side angle to the side or low side angle to the front. The turret front is modeled at about 200mm and even T ammo at point blank doesn't have a prayer (weak point 1% exceptions only). When the angle to the 82mm side is 60 degrees it is as impenetrable as a Panther glacis. The hull front with 100mm and 30 degrees or so of side angle is possible but quite hard, unlikely, etc.

The Tiger will destroy the T-34 with the first round it gets off, nearly always. Very occasionally a second will be necessary, but by the time that happens the Tiger will be front aspect and the kill chance for the T-34 will have gone practically to zero.

The T-34s chance thus comes down largely to the chance of a first shot full kill. And that is on the order of one in six to one in five, between misses, ricochets, no significant damage results, track hits, partials that do less than lethal damage, etc.

A full platoon of T-34s with T ammo in that perfect position are favored. A pair is about a coin toss.

In real tactical conditions you will lose T-34s getting others into anything like that position.

A full loss accounting for Russian armor losses over all their causes puts the lifetime kills per Tiger on the order of 4, maybe 5. In CMBB, you get that if you start in the worst tactical position described above.

This is mostly a function of low behind armor effect, which is especially tough on marginal overmatch penetrations and especially forgiving for large tonnage vehicles. Basically you need to penetrate a Tiger 3 times to get a solid chance of a kill, and you just won't get the time to run those up from a single shooter before the Tiger turns and kills you.

So, Russian CMBB players should not even bother trying to fight Tigers with vanilla T-34s, using flank and close teamwork tactics. You can use those tactics profitably against StuGs, which lack the turret to rotate rapidly and have thin enough sides, overmatched enough to penetrate easily with plain AP in 1943, etc. But not against Tigers, it is a fool's match up.

Use 57mm ATGs from hiding at 400 meters with a side aspect initial sight picture. Or use shoot and scoot for one round each from a pair of SU-152s, again initial side aspect. Or use a tank hunter at 40 meters from hiding.

In 1944, plenty of answers - T-34/85s are OK but JS-2s late model are better. Not favored, mostly due to low ROF and cower, but the 122mm will go in and their front hull hits will bounce; they need a sticky turret hit to kill you.

Tigers should not be 10 and 20 rariety in CM, and 57mm ATGs shouldn't be 50 to 100, but other than that they are not really where the problem is. They are nasty but should be nasty, and you should fight them with specialized counters or asymmetric tactics (mass HE killing all accompanying infantry, skulking, mines and THs and hidden 57mm, etc).

The problem is StuGs that cost the same price as a T-34, get 0 to 10 rariety at a time when they are the top 3% of the German AFV fleet (second half of 1942 I mean), have broken layered plate modeling for the 30+50, etc.

As for what should happen vs. StuGs, the Russian tactical doctrine documents that BTS used to sell on this site give the engagement ranges against them for the various Russian 76s, and they all say open at 400 to 600 meters. The German tactical documents say they are vulnerable at 500 meters. All of them agree that the StuG outranges the T-34 in killing range envelope, and stress first shot from ambush surprise and superior optics for ranged fire and the like - not frontal invulnerability.

There is a reason the Russians employed stand off ranges over 1 km or more with T-34s in 1942, and switched to closing tactics in 1943, when 80mm front German vehicles appeared. Before that, the Germans were the ones trying to close the range, to get 50L60 or worse to work. In fact the German recipe in 1941 with 50L42 was to be inside 300 meters and on a flank and using T ammo. Or 75L24 within 500 meters with a turret, side, or rear hit. (In CM the 50L42 can kill early model T-34s at 900 meters with plain AP, which is nuts).

Don't use the 30+50 "early middle" StuG models, and better yet don't use 80mm front long StuGs at all in 1942. Use Panzer IIIs with 50L60 and 70mm fronts, and if you want a long 75, take a Marder. In 1943, drive Panzer IVs - you get a killer gun and 80mm front hull, and it is what nearly the entire force was in that year anyway - and closer to the behavior of real world StuGs than the CMBB version anyway.

All it takes. If a German opponent won't abide by those reasonable requirements, don't play him. Because if he won't, it's because he's a jerk...

[jaeger8888]

Arguseye, you will never change their opinions on this matter.

These are the types of individuals who still believe the sun revolves around the earth and the Egyptian pyramids were built by aliens. Hard science is voodoo in their world.

Only the late model STG IIIF and Tiger I's side armor values give undue protection to the vehicles. The claim of wholesale devaluing of the Russian armaments is bogus. Having read material by authors like Ogorkiewicz, Zaloga, Forczyk, Michulec, Zetterling et al, the game certainly gives a good representation of the relative merits of the equipment on each side. I'll take their evaluations over the members of this board anytime. They have real credentials, PHD's in engineering, career armor officers and proven authors on this subject matter.

You'll never change their assessments. Anecdotal evidence is more relevant to them.

Every time I post here, I try to have some fresh research to further the discussion. This in order to bring some more factual perspective to answer the original question. And I'm beginning to wonder why.

When I arrange Tiger I's in CMBB to be ass-on to T34M43's, in ranges below 300 meters, with the Tigers dry, 10 out of 12 Tigers are killed before they can turn their heavy front armour toward the T34s. Immobilisations helped in three cases. The Tigers are -predictably- safe when the T34 is outside of the Kleeblatt, but their hide is pierced with a mix of three partial penetrations to one full penetration when the square-on aspects are attacked. When they cower it gets worse, because they tend to present flank and rear.

Despite lengthy research since my latest post, I've failed to find any new evidence throwing more light on the issue. Some more of the same is the only stuff I could dig up.

In answer to Bigduke6:

The 50+30 is broken. You know that. And as to the Tiger, I posted my experiences above.Under your point 1, you did a controlled test. Isn't that a lousy way? Much better to ask somebody who played the game at some point in time how he remembers it. Sorry for being facetious, but I think that point is made.I say it is not wronged by its modeling. The ammunition was, by all accounts, pretty bad historically. The game models this in a rather black and white way, perhaps; but I cannot altogether know whether this is correct or not from the information I have b been able to find. They give far too little detail, far too little context, far too little substance, far too little certainty. Both fact and urban myths are commonly known, and the latter category makes a lot better story to most people.Yes. Read Jentz' books on the Panzerwaffe for many anecdotes, some of which state exactly that. They're very likely untrue. Read Carius' memoirs. He never says he's invulnerable to anything, but he speaks of point blank 76 fire bouncing off his flanks.I don't know whether that attribution is correct. I don't know that was a 76mm. I don't know which 76mm. I don't know which ammo. I don't know anything about that picture. And they are notorious for misattribution. Proof positive, it is not.Somewhat. Let me reciprocate:

- Do you claim that the memory of old soldiers trumps intricate field and laboratory testing? By both sides?

- Do you claim that the anecdotes you quote are proof positive? Because I have a (verified) anecdote of a Tiger I resisting a 122mm shot from an IS II at point blank range (35m). Would you take that as representative fact, or as proof positive of anything at all? I don't.

- Are you suggesting that there weren't ammunition problems with the 85mm?

- Are you suggesting that the ZIS-3 was able to handle 80mm at full combat range (according to Soviet AT doctrine)? And if so, why did the Soviets not just blast the Germans to bits so much earlier, given the concomitant tactical advantages?

- Would you disdain Red Army leaflets, stating to the troopers manning these guns that to shoot at the armoured sides and rear of the Tiger I should be neglected in favour of the running gear, gun, and sight ports? I quoted such in an earlier post.

- Would you explain the Soviets going to some lengths to gain short range sideshots on 'ArtShturms' with the 76 if they could just knock it out from longer range or the front?

I will further answer a few questions you list:

Yes, in very many cases we know that in detail.Yes. Only the Germans tell this in detail, the Western allies are less verbose.It wasn't. That makes some shoots difficult to judge, but most err on the side of safety.In the German case, we know. They used experimental and production rounds, and always note which. In the British and American case, also. They use production rounds only. The Russians are less clear, but they seem to use specially fabricated testing rounds, but my sources for that are very vague. Massaging armour works, as long as deep impacts are achieved. This is not modeled in CMBB.I don't understand this question.Well known. The records are quite clear on this.Russians were not more rigorous. I don't know where this idea comes from. I can't tell if the Russian definitions bandied about are correct, I can't get the appropriate books. What is generally held about the German tests is untrue, that is easily verified from the Gercke and Kratz papers.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

It's interesting with all this angst about how the Russian side has been unfairly treated with allegations of "German physics" etc. yet I have just done a statistical analysis of all the battle results reported at the We Band of Brothers website. What may astound you to know is that the Russians (and yes, I have excluded all the Minor Axis losses to them) have an average winning percentage in all their battles (excluding draws) of about 52.3% while the favoured Germans (also excluding the Allied Minor losses) win, on average, 48.7% of the time. This is from a total sample of 1,679 battles.

So, does this mean that the Russians are somehow favoured in another vital area within the game that, interestingly enough, has not been the subject of such a lengthy and strident debate?

Things that make you go hmmmm......

Regards

KR

[dieseltaylor]

Hmmmmm ..........Including how many battles fought in the later war? I know there is a total of 4244 CMBB battles listed but you cannot break down the time periods so the number of games where T34/76's faced off against StugIII 's with the armour being questioned is impossible to say.

There have been around 1300 tournament battles that I do not believe are included in the KR's figures and certainly some of these include IS-III's so would hardly be representative. The point is that many games may have been fought with late and post war tanks to flatter the Allies. There are also quite a few games played where it is street-fighting further reducing the bad match-ups. So there is no comfort to be drawn from the WeBoB data base.

Is the next step is to introduce the StugIII 30+50mm armour patch which involves the .bmps being replaced with a lurid yellow model with Nein, and Nyet written on the armour to remind people it is definitely busted?

[Bigduke6]

Ogorkiewicz, Zaloga, Forczyk, Michulec, Zetterling

That's an impressive list. And EVERY ONE of those authors asserts that the Tiger I's side and rear armor was impervious to the Soviet 76mm AP at close and even better point blank range?

Might I request a page and paragraph? After all, if Zittering or Zaloga say something like -

"The Soviet 76mm was incapable of penetrating Tiger I from any aspect, even at point blank range. Historical Soviet tactics attempting to attack Tiger I at close and point blank range from the flank and rear was a classic case of suicidal denial. There was no point to it - even if a T-34 go or 76mm gun got off a perfect 100m - 200m shot off at the Tiger, the Tiger would always finish off its Soviet attacker before suffering harm itself."

- then in the first place I must say I never noticed it when I was reading those authors myself. And in the second place, I always welcome the opportunity to correct my limitations as a critical reader.

OK, so now the argument is that war veteran first-hand accounts are meaningless, because only historians may make valid historical conclusions?

As it happens, I can contribute:

"The Tiger I was the most lethal tank on the battlefield in 1943. It could stand off and decimate Soviet tank formations at ranges of over 1,000 meters, where it was invulnerable to Soviet return fire...Soviet tactics were to close with the Tigers as rapidly as possible and engage their thinner side and rear armor. These tactics were difficult to execute and the two Tiger detachments (battalions) during Citadel lost fewer than 10 tanks in combat while destroying several hundred Soviet tanks."

- Battle of Kursk, David M. Glantz and Johnathan House, page 18.

I would say the Glantz/House evaluation generally matches the experience reported by Soviet T-34 crewmen and 76mm gunners - who of course aren't historians, just old guys from the former Soviet Union but, we must admit, they add the unique perspective of having had their lives depend on knowing how to deal with a Tiger crew trying to kill them.

Anyway, the opinions seem match: Tiger tanks were fought, and with the proper tactics could be defeated at close range. It was not as if Tigers were invulnerable at all ranges.

If it were possible in CMBB to employ historical Soviet anti-Tiger tactics - pay the price of closing the distance, and engage the Tigers at close range, from the sides and rear - then I doubt a single "Soviet" CM player would have a gripe about overmodeled Tigers or emasculated 76mm. I certainly wouldn't.

(Of course, were that to be the case, that situation apparently contain a fatal flaw: People like me would think it was accurate and proper, and since our historical conclusions are apparently informed by space aliens, anything we consider to be true is inherently invalid.)

Anyway, if I might borrow Kannonier Reichmann's term, it's not angst, it's just a desire to be able to employ historical Soviet tactics in the simulation.

If the topic is now psychoanalysis, then one could always wonder about the kind of person for whom the ability to stand off at 1,000 meters in his virtual panzer in perfect, and historically-documented invulnerability, is insufficient for said virtual warrior's personal comfort. What can we say about a computer simulation player who cannot brook the idea of his opponents being able to harm him at all, his virtual Tiger tank must be invulnerable at all ranges, history be damned?

As to the Band of Brothers' stat, without begging the question on whether a 3 per cent differential is statistically significant, I would suggest the standard alternate view: In CM1, you have to be a better player to win with Allies.

[dieseltaylor]

Michael Green's Tiger Tanks, page 74, asserts that a glancing hit from a 122mm shell could produce concussion enough to disable a Tiger's turret mechanism. So whilst we can glibly talk about penetrations or lack off perhaps we should accept there were many ways to disable tanks or force a retreat in RL.

Unfortunately perhaps CMBB does not allow for a great range of results. Gun damage, immobilised, dead, or not. Crew hits I think are restricted to one.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I think we can all agree that the Stug IIIF8 is not properly modelled in CMBB with a much better than expected resistance to 76mm AT shells despite the disadvantage of only having bolted on additional armour to augment the original 50mm plate. However, the later model Stugs with 80mm armour as standard would be problematic for a marginally over matching AT round such as the one associated with the Russian 76mm gun due to the unusual angles the front of the Stug presented, especially when they're hull down.

When firing at that low profile upper hull there are a myriad of angles to contend with such as the highly angled upper part of the upper hull and the curved Sauerkopf gun mantlet (where applicable). It's not as if it had that very vertical upper hull plate that the Pz IV always presented with its earlier designed hull that conformed with traditional design philosophy prior to the T34 coming onto the scene and revolutionising most tank designs thereafter. I contend that it would still be a tough nut to crack even with the 76mm shell being modelled without any manufacturing defects.

The way I see it, Battlefront should have kept everything roughly the same (F8 excluded) except for one crucial element, being the modelling of increased weak point penetrations similar to the earlier Panthers which suffer from shot trap effects. This would not be unrealistic as there were certainly a few areas on the frontal aspect of a Stug that were actual weak points such as between the gun mantlet and the hull as well as the drivers periscope area.

Regards

KR

[Joachim]

Michael Green's Tiger Tanks, page 74, asserts that a glancing hit from a 122mm shell could produce concussion enough to disable a Tiger's turret mechanism. So whilst we can glibly talk about penetrations or lack off perhaps we should accept there were many ways to disable tanks or force a retreat in RL.

Unfortunately perhaps CMBB does not allow for a great range of results. Gun damage, immobilised, dead, or not. Crew hits I think are restricted to one.

Nope.

Partial pen from JS3 (ie 122L48), maybe using HE due to ammo shortage, vs flat front of Tiger I resulted in 4 dead crewmembers and an abandoned Tiger. Range was 100-200

Just one example I remember. But it proves "it exists". Not how often it happens.

Killing Tigers with 76mms in CMBB in '43 works. But you need higher odds than available in QBs.

IMHO the "rarity" models the production numbers over time of a given tank. Not its percentage in the tank fleet. And it does not model its combat value for a given period. It is a simple model that can't fit all purposes. Games do consist of simple models. Period. Simple models do not represent RL for all possible parameter sets. Period. Live with that.

Killing Tigers in '43 was tough in RL. You needed to do everything right. If those "hundreds of T34s lost" stated by BD6 were score by Tigers, than it meant 10+ dead T34s per dead Tiger. I guess 10 T34s in CMBB should suffice to kill a Tiger...

It is not just the weapon, it is the man who shoots: You need a good plan in RL and the same in CMBB. If you try it beer&pretzels you will fail. You need to play a perfect round of chess - or have lots of luck. And you need a map that either offers lots of LOS blocks - or a map large enough that distance covers while going around. I doubt Soviets tried to rush a Tiger thru its frontal firing arc from the march. IIRC Soviets had even a SOP to go around StuGs when encountering them. Why attack at the strong point of the enemy?

You play the weakness of the enemy and the strength of your own weapons. T34s are fast. They can go around in a wide circle, out of effective range of the 88. That's a CM map at least 5k wide and the Tigers are restricted to the centers. Overwhelming odds of T34s outgunning the flank protection of the Tigers. Then closing in from both flanks, maybe throwing some smoke in the process, diverting the Tigers, whatever. Well beyond the scale of CM. Well beyond the limited commands of CM.

The whole thing will put CM to its limits. It is not like that stupid "5 Shermans vs a Tiger" movie.

[jaeger8888]

Instead of saying this gun should penetrate that armor, here is a more logical and rational means of determining a rounds performance against armor.

"

First of all the probiblity of the round hitting is worked out, if it does the angle between the surface and the incoming round is calculated.

then you could use the De Marre formula.

which is

(velocity ^2 * Mass * (cosine angle) ^(2/n))/ diameter ^3

= C(thickness of plate/diameter of shell)^n

where n and C are constants.

However for sub caliber rounds at high angles +30 degrees the n in the (2/n) part of the equation is reduced to 1.11, the represent s the tendancies of these round to break up at steep angles. This was a change that was added in the most recent patch as certain people had noticed the penetration of sub claiber rounds was too high at extream angles.

Now to use the equation you will need a scientific calculator and the values for constants.

CM uses the German 75 L48 as a base on which all rounds are standardised (I think).

In which case the value for C is 4.25 approximatly.

The value for in is around 1.4-1.5 the higher value the flatter the nose is.

For APDS the values is 5.6 for C and 1.37 for N reducing to 1.11 for angles greater than 30 degrees.

BTW this is only how I would do it and it can get alot more complicated as any one who has read Rexfords posts will know.

There are some other factors smaller shells can be destroyed by larger plates that simply will not move out of the way even though the penetration should be greater than the plates thickness, this is the so called shatter gap.

Also the t/d ratio can have an effect on this process.

"

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Sometimes it will partial penetrate (despite 20% overmatch or better, at point blank with T ammo etc), which reduces the behind armor effect by a lot.

usually "overmatch" refers to round calibre vs plate thickness. the problem with 76mm is that it is overmatched by Tiger plate thickness. what's worse is that all 76mm rounds save one (IIRC) were of the type that perform badly against Tiger I's armor type. of course this has little to do with how borked the behind armor effect modelling is.

If a German opponent won't abide by those reasonable requirements, don't play him. Because if he won't, it's because he's a jerk...

have to agree with this.