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

[undead reindeer cavalry]

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.

actually the 50+30 plate combination should perform better than 80mm plate as both plates are facehardened. the 50+30 FH plates resist closer to 90mm than 80mm. the problem is that facehardened plates get weaker by each hit and CMBB does not simulate this. two plate combo may also cause angled hits to penetrate better than expected, since the first plate guides the round towards 90 degree angle for the second.

some types of rounds do better against FH armor, some worse. if the round doesn't have a cap designed against FH the rounds has likelyhood of shattering on impact even when it should penetrate. Soviet rounds tend to have only ballistics caps. add in poor quality of some types etc etc etc.

the other side of the coint are the weak spots of StuG front, the shattering of the FH plates themselves after impacts etc. what's especially of note when comparing to Tiger I armor, are the numerous plates that give rise to more common edge hit effects (that lower resistance).

[ArgusEye]

My weekend was consumed by leafing through yellowing paper again; I managed to get something new, even! A report from the Heereswaffenamt (abteilung not denoted) dated november 1945 is quoted in a lengthy essay on the necessity of decentralization of ammunition industries, in which there is some discussion of the UBR-365 and UBR-365K rounds. A double translation (unfortunately the original was translated to Dutch for the essay) in part:

[...] The relatively high quality of production and finishing achieved by the overrun plants before 1941 is still not seen in present specimens. The new projectiles show different processes of fabrication, which do not square with the original factories having been taken into use again. Rapid improvement of enemy 8,5 cm effect against armour should therefore not be expected.

Not great, but interesting. Unfortunately, it proves nothing.

Bigduke, I agree with you that the aggregate of memoirs of soldiers is a great resource. If nothing else, they can at least paint us a picture of actual practice and behaviour on the battlefield, which no test can. However, when it comes to these purely technical matters, a controlled test cannot be beaten. Neither the projectile nor the armour know that they are not really in battle, and will behave the same as in any battle. The circumstances are, however, controlled, and equipment can be used for truly objective observation. This is hardly possible in a combat situation.

The leaflet I alluded to is not available under any link that I know of (which would have saved me a trip to the university library), but you should be able to find it easily, given that you have access to ex-Soviet libraries. It is issued under the name of Fedor Samsonow, apparently some big shot in the artillery branch, and is dated march 3, 1943.

Potapov is rather spectacularly wrong about the German testing procedure, and I find it therefore tricky to trust what he has to say about the Soviet procedure. For those interested, I'll give a quick summary of the German procedure:

Round is produced, and standard formulae are used to predict its performance.

Projectile is shot over a long range, its velocity (and deceleration) measured by induction sensing devices, and a distance/velocity chart built.

Separately, standardized plates are set up at a nominal 30 degree angle to be used for impact testing. The amount of propellant is varied to vary impact velocity.

Velocities of impact are started out low, and increased until a 'satisfactory' penetration is achieved.

To qualify as the penetration velocity, the projectile must make a satisfactory penetration in five out of five shots (small calibers require ten out of ten, larger calibers require three out of three).

Satisfactory penetration is defined as the projectile completely arriving at the other side of the armour plate in a state which allows it to detonate.

So:

Partial penetrations: Fail.

Projectile broken up, but fully penetrates: Fail.

Fuse busted on penetration: Fail.

Intact penetration, but at an angle which will not activate the fuse: Fail.

And then, as the penetration table is complete, the longest-range shot is performed at the range (so no cheating with artificially lowered velocities) to identify any yaw problems. Gercke remarks that this is usually no problem.

I'd say that's pretty rigourous.

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.

The former is logical. That's the range where you start beating up even the 80mm fronts. Doesn't guarantee you easy kills though. The latter is something you still will have to back up. What German tactical document?

Jaeger8888, I have no illusions about convincing everyone. I'm in this discussion to see if other people can break my position with arguments I haven't found, and perhaps I'll even be swayed. But mostly, I post because the consensus on the forum seems to be that the portrayal of the Soviet hardware is somehow (intentionally) too bleak. I find that researching the primary sources does not support this consensus. Since people here are interested in the same as I, it is only civil to offer it. And it might provoke others to come with interesting stuff - even if it is meant to disprove my points. I gain either way.

When it comes to 50+30 having improved resistance in some cases, I have to protest. Face hardening is great to avoid deep gouging, and it can shatter rounds, but a second layer of face hardening isn't going to do that. The first layer of armour already surrounds the projectile, which will not glance nor break because of that simple fact. The only effect of the layering that remains, is that you have a layer of 30mm which is not shear supported by the layer of 50mm behind it. In a true 80mm plate, this shear support is present.

As a parting shot, a comment about 'borked' behind armour effects vs. the Tiger: There are repeated exhortations to Tiger crews not to stow more ammo onboard than can be accomodated in the ammunition stowage areas. The 'loose' ammunition greatly increased the chance of brewing up in the event of a penetration. At one point, it is explained that the ammo stowage is carefully designed so that a deflagrating propellant charge will only vent in such a way, that it will not set off other rounds. Still, it seems not to have been uncommon for Tigers overloading themselves in this way.

It is often mentioned to contrast the new Panthers catching fire and brewing up almost every time they suffer a flank penetration.

[Bigduke6]

Arguseye,

That's an interesting find, thanks, always interested in another source.

Found his bio. The man you are talking about is Colonel General Fedor Aleksandrovich Samsonov. Member of the Red Army 1920, Frunze Academy 1934, Academy of General Staff in 1941. Was commander of Rostov Artillery School in 1937 (This is how he dodged the purges, I assume.) During the war was a General staff officer, and from August 1941 staff officer for artillery for the Briansk Front. Became artillery commander of the 28th Army in November 1941, and Chief of Red Army Staff for Artillery as of December 1941. From 1946 he was head of teachers' staff for the Red Army General Staff School, and at some point after that became involved in "military-scientific work", which is Soviet-speak for went into military academia.

Whether or not those credentials are solid, who can say?

He authored a cool little booklet called "Artillery Attack" which is a 16-page pamphlet printed by Voenizdat in 1946 on the basics of Red Army artillery technique. I found it one the web, the section on anti-tank artillery says the proper tactics against enemy attacks tipped with heavy armor is to use heavy not light artillery in the defence, and then hit the enemy heavy armor in the flank.

This is not conclusive either, but I think that certainly does not detract from my argument that the standard Red Army tactic vs. heavy enemy armor was to obtain a flank shot.

It is likewise interesting that your research on German armor testing standards contradicts Potapov's. Although I have plenty of reason to consider him a reliable source on things Soviet, I have no particular reason to do so on things German.

But where does that leave us? For me, there are at least as many questions about the variables in a historical laboratory test, when we are talking about AP rounds of the WW2 era, as there are in the collective memories of combat participants.

Also, it appears you contradict yourself. You say, you are unconvinced the Soviet 76mm is undermodeled in the game, yet when you respond to JasonC's post regarding Soviet tactics vs. the 80mm StuG (wait until the range is 400m - 600m, and better 200m or less) , you say "The former is logical. That's the range where you start beating up even the 80mm fronts. Doesn't guarantee you easy kills though."

I don't know what version of CMBB you are playing, but in my 1.03 patched version engaging an 80mm StuG from the front with the 76mm at 400m or 600m is suicide. As it is at 300m, 200m, and 100m. Yes, perhaps, after 15-20 hits on the front of the StuG, you might get a partial penetration. But the StuG fires back, and as a practical matter the 76mm will fire maximum 5-6 rounds before fire is returned, and at that range the German 75mm is a first shot first kill weapon.

The situation is precisely the same with a 76mm ambushing a Tiger I from the flank. The 76mm gets off 2-3 shots, and then the Tiger presents its frontal armor, and destroys the 76mm/T-34.

If the standard Soviet tactics for employing the 76mm do not work in the game, how can you argue the Soviet 76mm is modeled accurately?

As for me, I could care less whether the 76mm is modeled accurately or not. I just want to use the historical Soviet tactics, engage StuGs from about 500m or less, and Tigers from the side at maybe 250m or less, and have a fighting chance of winning the engagement.

I do not call trying somehow to fire off 15-20 rounds of 76mm unopposed, in hopes of getting a single partial penetration on the side of a Tiger at 200m, with all the minimized behind-armor effect of a partial penetration, a fighting chance.

If you do, that's why we differ on this. Our definitions of reasonable performance for the 76mm are far apart.

You see reasonable performance as, roughly "one chance in a very long time, enough to exclude an argument of no chance". That's not my view.

OK, enough text, now for a pic. Here is one pulled from a Russian armor head thread. Allegedly the left two holes are standard 76mm AP, and the right one is a sub-caliber round. Supposedly this is a Tiger tested and still parked at at Kubinka. All in all that's the way it looks to me too, but I'm probably prejudiced. And of course CMBB teaches us Soviet 76mm conventional rounds had no hope of punching through the front of Tiger I.

So perhaps it's all an optical illusion, judge for yourself:

[undead reindeer cavalry]

When it comes to 50+30 having improved resistance in some cases, I have to protest.

it has an effect that weakens resistance in every single case other than the one in which both plates are face hardened.

It is often mentioned to contrast the new Panthers catching fire and brewing up almost every time they suffer a flank penetration.

yea, though i don't think this is simulated in CMBB.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

If the standard Soviet tactics for employing the 76mm do not work in the game, how can you argue the Soviet 76mm is modeled accurately?

As for me, I could care less whether the 76mm is modeled accurately or not. I just want to use the historical Soviet tactics, engage StuGs from about 500m or less, and Tigers from the side at maybe 250m or less, and have a fighting chance of winning the engagement.

i hear you and agree. i think we have arrived at the monstrous bottom-up vs top-down game design limbo. abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

[Vark]

My problem, as a wargamer of thirty five years, is that the German advantages; better trained, optics, high velocity guns, heavy armour, superior C3 etc, are more than adequately handled by most systems, their disadvantages though are often ignored. Conversely, Russian advantages are down played and their obvious disadvantages, or inferiorities, are more than simulated, whether its raw combat factors and two man turret rules, sans radios, or suspect gun performance based often on their opponents estimations.

Don't get me wrong, the Soviets burdened their forces with lots of negatives, due to their approach to war but that approach also had advantages. Systems that pride themselves on how accurate they model penetration of armour, yet simplify the end results tend to favour the Germans. You do not need to kill a German tank, just degrade it so that it fails in its mission. Simple guestimations of Tigers lost 10 v's opponents killed 2-300 miss the point, how many Tigers were not fit for purpose, after suffering the constant attention from every AT platform/weapon system they faced?

[Joachim]

In the end it is total write-offs that count. If a tank is not "fit for purpose" but can be recovered by its owners, he will fight another day. If the general objective (e.g. a breakthrough) was achieved and the tank will fight again 2 weeks later - what does it help to the defender? It takes 50 tons of steel and lots of work to build a Tiger but just some parts to repair it.

Only if enough tanks are not "fit for the purpose" so the mission fails and/or the tanks can't be recovered... that's what really counts.

It might be less costly to attack somewhere else and force the Tigers to relocate to the rear, destroying the vehicles in the abandoned workshops than to attack the Tiger btn head-on. There is a 3000km front. There are a few hundred Tigers. They can't be everywhere. There is no sense in giving the Tigers lots of attention with everything near. Keep that stuff vs those tanks it can kill. The trick is to fight the support and the supply lines of the Tigers.

What's that CM scen with IS2s vs KTs? That is the way you fight Tigers if you need to. Make sure they are without much support, trying to get to their depots. Any KT no longer fit for the purpose won't make it home. and several will just break down without seeing a fight.

Neither strategic effects nor breakdowns before a battle are modelled in CM. CM has a knack about fighting fair on the battlefield. Strategy is the art of not playing fair. And it is impossible to put the strategic effects into a tactical wargame. Not if you want it somewhat "balanced".

Re German HV guns and better optics: Pair a vet (allied) T34/85 and a vet Tiger. Check their hit chances vs each other. No big difference. Similar velocity of the guns - and velocity is the most dominant variable regarding accuracy (the next is target size). Especially vs moving targets. German tanks might spot a bit better. If they have a cupola. But once borg spotting takes over, that doesn't matter much. So some German advantages are negated, too.

Ever tried Hornet's nest? Did Hornets/Rhinos work in RL? Did you manage to score a German victory? Not even vs the dumb AI? Why not? What is the problem in the model there? Some negated German advantages?

Re Bad behind armor effect of 76mm? A serious hurt to the Soviet war effort in CM? Well, a 75mm gun ain't much better. Even L70.

CM is a model. That means it is an approximation. Yes, it fails in several scenarios. Live with it. StuG front or Tiger side armor is something you can avoid in CM. Certain other "features" affect '41 to '45.

It is an entirely different question from a purely academic POV. Lots of the stuff dug out above is pretty interesting.

[Vark]

Just tried a veteran Tiger v's 15 Veteran T-34 85's (late model 44's) in an August 44 meeting engagement. Initial ranges were 1500-1600 metres and the Tiger destroyed 10, before retiring when out of AP. Repeated the exercise with a more realistic 1 v's 3 at 850-900 and had the Tiger KO'd once and the T-34's all destroyed four times, oh the Tiger suffered a crew casualty in one encounter. So, as I said the German advantages are explicit, the Nashorn example is bogus because the Borg spotting kills it, not any superiority of Russian equipment or negation of German. I did manage to win Hornets nest easily by forgetting about shoot and scoot (only one aimed shot) and using carefullt timed hunt commands that allowed 2-3 aimed shots, then relocated below the ridge line. I lost one Nashorn but shot apart the Russian armor, using the mortars to fire a smoke screen to cut the Russian force in two helped. I also remember initial engagement ranges were 1900m and yet I was still killing the KV's.

It is a shame that CM campaigns was dropped as that could have led to a whole new dimension being opened up, especially regarding the mobility of some units.

Oh and the behind armour effect of a 75 L70 seems perfectly adequate, again one Veteran Panther v's 5 veteran T-34 85's at 1200m, result a slaughter (even had some of the T-34's suffer catastrophic kills). My final point, imagine the howls of outrage from the majority of CM gamers if the German 75 L48 was as nerfed, v's the T-34 as alot of people here believe the 76 is v's the Stug.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Just an interesting observation when I set up a meeting engagement between a Tiger and 4 T34/76's of the 1943 vintage on a pretty flat battlefield with some foliage around but not much cover overall. Sure enough, the Tiger won the day in my one play through due to the difficulty in getting all 4 Soviet tanks into firing position at under 400 metres without getting picked off in the process of advancing. However, the thing that amazed me was that the Tiger managed 2 front turret hits on a particular T34/76 yet the first one only caused internal armour flaking while the 2nd also failed to obliterate the tank but caused 1 crew casualty instead. This from a hulking great 88mm AP shell.

Goes to show that there's still hope if you're lucky. Perhaps I will try with 5 T34's this time & see how we go.

Regards

KR

[Joachim]

Just tried a veteran Tiger v's 15 Veteran T-34 85's (late model 44's) in an August 44 meeting engagement. Initial ranges were 1500-1600 metres and the Tiger destroyed 10, before retiring when out of AP. Repeated the exercise with a more realistic 1 v's 3 at 850-900 and had the Tiger KO'd once and the T-34's all destroyed four times, oh the Tiger suffered a crew casualty in one encounter. So, as I said the German advantages are explicit, the Nashorn example is bogus because the Borg spotting kills it, not any superiority of Russian equipment or negation of German. I did manage to win Hornets nest easily by forgetting about shoot and scoot (only one aimed shot) and using carefullt timed hunt commands that allowed 2-3 aimed shots, then relocated below the ridge line. I lost one Nashorn but shot apart the Russian armor, using the mortars to fire a smoke screen to cut the Russian force in two helped. I also remember initial engagement ranges were 1900m and yet I was still killing the KV's.

Well. Looks like you used good tactics within CM with the Nashorn example. Why didn't you use smoke and rushed the T34m44s forward vs the Tiger? That would negate their disadvantage a lot. Maybe not necessary in RL, but a workaround in CM. (OTOH I still doubt T34s tried to duel it out with Tigers at range in RL. And it is SOP to fire a few rounds max and change the firing position. Firing single rounds, keeping the range for a single target when relocating a few metres, while the Tiger has to memorize 5 if the T34s don't bunch.)

Just like your workaround with replacing shoot&scoot thru hunt. In RL the Nashorns wouldn't forget ranges by temporarily reversing to cover. In CM, they forget them once the target is moving or LOS is broken. That really hurts long range gunnery. Which should be better for German equipment (hitting, not pen). Yet it isn't. I still fail to see a difference between different optics in CM. No German advantage there. Yet I bet there is a reason why the US advanced to Jena (Soviet sector) and relocated the optical works from their to their own sector.

It is a shame that CM campaigns was dropped as that could have led to a whole new dimension being opened up, especially regarding the mobility of some units.

Yes. That would have balanced a few things...

Oh and the behind armour effect of a 75 L70 seems perfectly adequate, again one Veteran Panther v's 5 veteran T-34 85's at 1200m, result a slaughter (even had some of the T-34's suffer catastrophic kills). My final point, imagine the howls of outrage from the majority of CM gamers if the German 75 L48 was as nerfed, v's the T-34 as alot of people here believe the 76 is v's the Stug.

Try 75mm vs the side of SU85/SU100. 45m@0-20° armor, gun hitting from 2 to 4 o'clock. If you're lucky you score a crew kill with a pen. HC, L4x AP, L70 AP - no matter. Repeat with 85mm or 88mm. That reliably kills with first pen.

[Vark]

I think the optics advantage is noticeable in long range engagements, the T-34 85's fired but failed to register any hits at the initial range of 1500m. The Tiger on the other hand reguarly hit and killed so by the time the T-34;s were getting close to effective range (1000m) they had been heavily attrited. I do seem to remember, in the dim and distant past, CM saying that only high quality units could take advantage of sophisticated optics, as for Zeiss, they were known for producing superior optics well before WWII.

Kanonier, you have better luck than me, when my T-34's are hit, by a Tiger, they raise their hats quite frequently!

[ArgusEye]

Bigduke, Samsonows credentials look about as solid as you can get. And I do not contest that the Soviets went for flank shots at close range against heavy armour.

I think our main issue may lie in how we expect either the game or actual battle to go; I labour under the impression that the 76 guns were the best the Soviets had in enough numbers, so it fell to them to attack the heavy armour with it. Doctrinally, they would let the enemy tanks roll close before opening fire, preferably in the flank. With Tigers, this resulted in some kills, mostly due to a lot of shots. This is witnessed by the sheer amount of holes and dents in killed Tigers.

I think this is hard to do in CMBB. Not because of any bias or technical penetration mismodeling, but because it is far too easy to spot an AT gun. Finding them, even when they were firing, was by all accounts quite tricky. Not so in CMBB. The Germans praise the Soviet camouflage and fieldworks, where in CMBB using fortified positions makes the gun easier to spot, not harder. Borg spotting also doesn't help one bit. Therefore, I think that the performance of the gun is not the problem, it's the spotting system.

Regardless, when I play Soviet in CMBB I always use the Soviet doctrinal approach, because it works. It works better than any alternative I've tried, anyway.

Also, it appears you contradict yourself. You say, you are unconvinced the Soviet 76mm is undermodeled in the game, yet when you respond to JasonC's post regarding Soviet tactics vs. the 80mm StuG (wait until the range is 400m - 600m, and better 200m or less) , you say "The former is logical. That's the range where you start beating up even the 80mm fronts. Doesn't guarantee you easy kills though."

I should have been clearer. When I would have to write doctrine for the firing line, I'd do the same thing. Where panzers want to roll through the lines, giving me the opportunity to ambush in the flank, the StuGs will hang back behind the first line of infantry. They are, after all, the problemsolvers for the troops. If any resistance shows up, they will shoot up the position from a distance. But because the infantry is in front of the StuGs, you cannot allow them to come arbitrarily close. You have to start firing at extreme range. Even if you don't kill them (which can happen at 500 meters!) you will still beat them back. Drive failures, gun damage, sighting damage, spalling, armour failing under multiple hits, all can be achieved. The fire is not wasted.

This thread seems to have two faces; on the one hand a technical discussion about what certain pieces of equipment could or could not do, and on the other hand whether or not the game is fair. Those two things seem to run together sometimes, and I personally find it very tricky to deal with any argument based on game fairness when we're discussing ammunition quality.

I found an amusing paper about first-hand combat accounts. It shows the reports and reminiscences of the combatants in several small engagements, and it strikes one how different the stories are. I'm not going to reproduce it here in full, but a quick summary might be fun:

There was a small air raid in november 1944 by the RAF, where they sent two Spitfire IX's to patrol along the Dutch coast near the Hague, to harass and attack any V1 or V2 launching attempts. This patrol was largely unsuccessful, and as dusk approached, the pilots decided to attack a target of opportunity: Ockenburgh airfield. This had been a Dutch military strip, but the Germans had found it unsuitable for modern planes and put down only fake buildings and two fake aircraft, together with realistic lights. The Germans were present with a heavy FlaK battery, which does not figure in the action, and one battery of three 20mm guns near the harbour and airstrip. The strafing attack on the airfield was inconsequential, and any damage was not reported. One of the Spitfires crashed into the sea later, killing the pilot. The other one made it home safely. No other Allied aircraft activity above this sector went on during these last two hours. Knowing this, it is instructive to see what the participants reported.

The RAF pilot reported that they decided per radio to attack the airfield, and made a low level attack. They were then taken under fire from ten to fifteen light FlaK mounts, causing them to abort the run. Coming back from another angle, he claimed to have destroyed two fighter planes each. A third strafing run was aborted when German fighter planes were noticed, and one Spitfire was stricken by an unseen enemy fighter. After assuring over radio that he was going to be alright, the wingman suddenly lost power and tried to ditch in the sea. The flight leader made a beeline for home, and informed the authorities in Britain of the ditch, to initiate rescue.

The FlaK boys report that they had spent most of the day near the guns, because pairs of Spitfires kept showing up near the coast, staying just out of range. Near dusk, two Spitfires were spotted coming in toward the airstrip. Firing orders were given. One gun could get a good shot, and expended 7 rounds. The Spitfires banked away, climbing. A second run was fired upon by two guns, one expending 34 rounds, the other 40. No hits were observed. Both aircraft then climbed away over the North Sea and were not seen again. Third gun crew never saw the enemy due to placing. A quarter of an hour later new aircraft alarm was given, but before firing these were identified as German fighters, despite the twilight.

The Luftwaffe received a phonecall from Ockenburgh, about a Spitfire attack. Two flights of 3 and 4 ME109 respectively were scrambled from two airfields, and vectored towards the enemy. These flights reported engaging enemy fighters over the North Sea, expending most ammunition and claiming 3 and 2 fighters destroyed respectively. All returned.

Very different stories, but about the same event. Gives one something to think about...

As for the photo: I can't tell what gun made those holes. The two big obvious ones seem to be subcaliber hits (the spackle around the penetration shows what happened to the flanges), but I can't tell what caliber. It could be, as far as I know, from 85mm or 100mm guns. If there is no clear documentation, that picture doesn't tell me 'the how or what'.

it has an effect that weakens resistance in every single case other than the one in which both plates are face hardened.

No, face hardening only works once. It doesn't harm a projectile that has already defeated the first face, and glancing is prohibited by the projectile nose being embedded in the outer plate. What mechanism could help the second hardened layer to add so much as to offset the lack of shear support?

As for optics, they should give a big advantage in long range shooting - more than now at least - and a huge spotting advantage. That is where the main difference lay. I once collected these things, I had a nice collection before I had to sell.

[Joachim]

I think the optics advantage is noticeable in long range engagements, the T-34 85's fired but failed to register any hits at the initial range of 1500m. The Tiger on the other hand reguarly hit and killed so by the time the T-34;s were getting close to effective range (1000m) they had been heavily attrited. I do seem to remember, in the dim and distant past, CM saying that only high quality units could take advantage of sophisticated optics, as for Zeiss, they were known for producing superior optics well before WWII.

Kanonier, you have better luck than me, when my T-34's are hit, by a Tiger, they raise their hats quite frequently!

Well... if you didn't repeat the test, I'll counter with single incidents from CM, too I got several vehicles shoot up at ranges beyond 1500m by SU85M/SU100. First or second round kills.

If your T34s moved, they won't get any bonus anyway.

And I remember that part about vets or higher taking advantage. Never noticed it, but never did controlled tests.

[Vark]

I repeated the long range shoot five times and the Tiger survived, the last three I amended the ammo load out to maximise AP and all the T-34's were kO's or abandoned. On average 2-3 hits were scored by the 85mm's and they had no effect at all, the test was not to see if the T-34's could close and then kill the Tiger but rather to look at how both performed at range.

I think where the Germans are short changed the greatest is the relative unimportance of having a radio in an AFV, thanks to borg spotting and the God like view the players have. I really wish that CM had a simple orders menu that could not be changed until a set of objectives had been met. Steel Panthers III had a very crude system but it really showed why Soviet tactics relied on rehearsed manoeuvres and came unstuck when faced with an opponent with better C3 and initiative. The OODA loop really came into play, yet if the Germans had a poor plan and relied on their flexibility, to 'see them through, they would often get caned.

Argus, interesting comment on the duality of the threads nature, rather a heads and hearts debate and that rarely leads to any cross-pollination of ideas, just a pointless butting of horns. Borg spotting destroys historical defensive plans so work arounds can be used to approximate reality, and as for realism I'm reminded of John Hill's comment: most of his games would get a 3 out of ten, that might rise to 6 if both players were under the strict understanding the loser would be taken out and shot! As I have said, many a time, will CM2 change the relationship that players have with favoured pieces of kit. the idea of variable spotting will cause a wholesale rethink of CM type tactics. Perhaps the variable spotting routine will factor in the superior quality optics ability for light gathering and reticule visibility in low-light conditions.

I will try to fight some SU-85's and see how they do, though I do remember getting a Panther spanking when my SU's and desantki met several times, perhps it was during a nerfed 85mm period. I'd always read that the 85mm was of a similar performance to the 75 L48 but that was in the pre-internet days when access to technical papers was limited to a lucky few, or paraphrased, often to support a particular theory.

As for personal recollections, "The Devils Adjutant", detailing Peiper's Ardennes exploits is a very good source for showing how official unit histories can be very misleading. Interestingly Peiper spun many a false hood, to his interegators, often to cover up blunders, and, being Peiper, there were a fair few of those!

[dieseltaylor]

I was doing an experiment and incidentally set-up a fleet of 23 German big gun units against 15 Russian.

At game start at slightly over 4km a single Nashorn opened fire of the four in the mix. It did seem that the Nashorns were the most aware. Most of the other German tanks had to be given fire orders as 1% chances apparently are not sufficient incentive.

Over about 10 minutes of firing three Russian SU's died for the loss of one Nashorn, one gun damaged JagdTiger, and 7 commanders deceased. Fire from 152mm and 122mm can be within about 20-40 metres to kill a commander. The Russians had to be ordered to fire and never appeared to have a hit chance above 0%.

Of course I should have changed everyone to crack rather than regular as the Germans could not used the advanced sights.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

What mechanism could help the second hardened layer to add so much as to offset the lack of shear support?

i guess it's the same effect that's at work with angled shots bending towards 90 degress, but reverse. to be frank the theoretical explanation espaces my demented mind at the moment, but the thing itself (added resistance) was proven with trials (Panzer III plates IIRC).

[ArgusEye]

If there are trials, I'm more than interested. Any place I should start looking?

This weekend I discovered that some WWII stuff in the library is still classified. We're 65 years after the fact, and secrecy is still upheld about some technical matters. Amazing.

Even more amazing: they don't tell you when you order the report, but only when you come to pick it up. And they tell you they're obliged to inform the authorities. Messed up world. :mad:

[dieseltaylor]

I was just test-playing some CMBB stuff for a new tournament and rather amusingly I had two MkIV's hunting and a hunting IS-II saw them first and started firing. This occurring at 1500+ metres I was not expecting much but the percentages rose quite quickly.

A T-34/85 coming to their assistance was nailed at 1527metres and knocked out with a single shot. A of the rest of the MkIV platoon one had bogged and immobilised but another joined the fight and recieved a turret hit from a 122mm - the crew were shaken! Which was pretty much the same result for the hits on the IS-II. though one shot penetrated for a crew kill.

The IV's were not cowering - but then the Germans rarely do.

I have played it through a bit further and I see that the IS-IIs are firing HE at the MkIVs and that can kill as one blew up spectacularly. Intent on getting the Stalins to fight I had a MkIV firing its HE and it destroyed a Stalin gun. Now that is a result! The secret ingredient being a Panther where its rate of fire and lethality makes a difference ending with two Stalins and two t34/85's. The Tiger got a Stalin before dying to one.

In the end 4 dead IS-IIs and 3 T34/85's for a Tiger and a two MkIV's. This was played on a huge map.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

If there are trials, I'm more than interested. Any place I should start looking?

i don't have the books here so i just googled

some talk here, possibly with pointers (too long, didn't read):

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=31715&mpage=1

[dieseltaylor]

What a good read.

Thanks for the link.

[ArgusEye]

Thank you for the pointer, URC. I will concede the point to you, because -as is discussed in the thread you linked- there is a penetrator mode I had not considered. In case of thin armour with a small penetrator, the penetrator can break up and penetrate the first armour plate, then be rejected by the hardened layer of the second. I was so focused on large projectiles that I completely missed that possibility. If there is any standoff between the two plates, also yield of the first may contribute - which is the case with some plates of the Pz IIIH.

I doff my hat to you.

I'm pretty much stuck as far as finding new information on the 85mm T34 guns goes. Where the evidence regarding the F34 seems pretty consistent and complete (to me at least), I can only find vague and contradictory statements regarding the 85mm.

I have failed to get access to Red Army original publications, like reports and internal newspapers, which is annoying. The Russian scholars contradict each other about how much trouble the 85mm guns had with their targets. Some report a lot more gun and accuracy trouble than others, but most seem to agree that the gun had serious ammo problems.

The Germans harp on about not dismissing the dangers from the gun on the basis of seemingly miraculous survival of an impact or two. But how much this happens, they do not report quantitatively.

My impression is this: It seems that the 85mm AA guns were originally supplied with good quality prewar ammo, but the factory making it was overrun. (according to the Germans, before it was abandoned to the Soviets in retreat, it was "durch Sprengung völlig betriebsunfähig gemacht") Because the Soviets were burning through their ammo supply pretty quickly, they produced some quick and dirty ammunition, which was of pretty bad quality. It took until january '44 before this was alleviated, and then it went from craptacular to just bad. According to the Germans there was big variability between batches, and I can find no reason to doubt that.

What tests I have been able to track down show a makeshift gun that doesn't perform like one would expect from its caliber and weight. The few comparison tests place its performance more or less on equal position with the 75L48. And those all used postwar ammunition. As for accuracy, that seems to have been dramatic because of a too-long powder burn. A strange choice, because what use is some extra penetration if you don't hit?

In the game, penetration for the 85mm is uniformly bad until it turns uniformly good in early 1944. My -tentative- conclusion is that it is a pessimistic model pre-1944 and an optimistic model later. The accuracy of all guns in game is spastic monkey level, so I find it hard to judge. But it is able to load on the move, which should not be.

I await any arguments to disabuse me of my conclusions!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thank you for the pointer, URC. I will concede the point to you, because -as is discussed in the thread you linked- there is a penetrator mode I had not considered. In case of thin armour with a small penetrator, the penetrator can break up and penetrate the first armour plate, then be rejected by the hardened layer of the second. I was so focused on large projectiles that I completely missed that possibility. If there is any standoff between the two plates, also yield of the first may contribute - which is the case with some plates of the Pz IIIH.

I doff my hat to you.

Fair enough, but would a 76.2mm (i.e. 3 inch) AP shell be considered a "small penetrator" in the context of Pz III 50mm + 30mm armour?

Regards

KR

[JasonC]

dt - for all those who think this is some sort of independent evidence or support, it is not.

This is the same echo chamber, from the same source that advised BTS on its armor model. (note the comments that refer to the poster as "Lorin"? Same guy, posted here oh about 48 thousand times...) Nobody else agreed, before or since, that layered plate resists more than one plate.

[ArgusEye]

Fair enough, but would a 76.2mm (i.e. 3 inch) AP shell be considered a "small penetrator" in the context of Pz III 50mm + 30mm armour?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: The mechanism described on the thread linked will only happen for plates that are slightly overmatched by the penetrator, are hardened for a large (more than, say, a quarter) part of their depth, and for projectiles that are shatter prone, pointed, and more or less solid. Cavities will quickly make the second layer hardening moot, because the breakup will be more dramatic.

The F34 fires blunt nosed greatly overmatching projectiles with burster charge. This effect does not matter for the 76mm or 85mm guns. I conceded to URC that he was right in stating the effect exists. I don't expect to see it in anything else than ATR's, automatic FlaK guns, maybe the PAKs of 37mm and the 2pdr. Against selected targets, of course. With round X on target Y, the plates resist as more than the sum of their parts. With another combination, target Y will resist as usual, with less than the sum of the plates.

JasonC, any luck in finding primary sources yet?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I conceded to URC that he was right in stating the effect exists. I don't expect to see it in anything else than ATR's, automatic FlaK guns, maybe the PAKs of 37mm and the 2pdr.

so you dismiss the actual firing test results that show that 32mm FHA + 30mm FHA combo resists as 69mm against 75mm APCBC? if not, i can't see how the uncapped 76mm BR-350A would have chances against hitting the 50+30 combo at an angle.