Question on Jagdtiger

[Deputy]

I just played a scenario where a bunch of Jagdtigers went up against some T34 tanks. I figured the Jagdtiger would knock them out fairly easily and be immune to their guns. Instead, I was presented with a bunch of smoking hulks for the Jagdtigers. Something definitely seems to be wrong here. I don't think even the T34/85 should be able to get one shot kills so easily.

Am I wrong?

[Lt Belenko]

flank shots?

[dieseltaylor]

More info please.

85's or 76's is rather a big difference in lethality. Range helps as in fog .....

[Tux]

T-34/85s will reliably kill Jagdtigers from the flanks at range. Late-war T-34/76s will also kill them from the flanks below 100m or so, or from longer range using tungsten ammo.

If you kept your Jagdtigers facing the T-34s at range then the T-34s didn't kill them and you are mistaken. Simple as that.

[JoMac]

The T-34/85 will reliably penetrate the Jagdtiger from the flank at almost any range, however, the T34/76 will not regardless of ammo.

Joe

[Deputy]

I'll try it again. It was at long and close range. Didn't matter. They were mainly T34/76. And it didn't matter if it was frontal or side shots. Although most were frontal. Plus the 128mm gun seemed as worthless as a 50mm gun. One shot kills at a moving tank. I'm sorry, that's just plain BS. NONE of those tanks had gun stabilization systems back then. Something is definitely WRONG here. Just curious....was this sim also produced in Russia? I have seen WW2 sims produced from there that tended to give extreme advantages to their own equipment. IL-76 from Ubisoft is a good example.

I can see the JSII and JSIII tanks giiving Tigers a good fight. But T34s...I don't think so. Those tanks should be easy pickings for a Tiger of any type.

[rune]

Going to disagree with Jomo. The t34/76 can indeed penetrate at up to about 200 meters. First, the Russian figures state 80% of shells penetrate, while american state 50%. Keeping that in mind, also remember the armor was 80mm thich on the side of the Jagdtiger.

First German testing:

The data available in soviet penetration tables are very different from western penetration tables. Soviets methods are based on 80% probability of penetration while US and german tables are based on 50% probability. Some values from penetration tables are taken from calculations rather than actual tests. Another thing worth mentioning is that the ability to penetrate armour increased as the war went on and the quality of the shells improved. Your best bet IMO is to read what the veterans have to say about killing distances.

Here are some data for captured F 34 guns using ammunition that was produced in germany. This shell was slightly superior to the sovitet shells at most ranges.

82 mm@ 100m, 75 mm@ 500m, 67 mm@ 1000m, 60 mm@ 1500m, 54 mm @ 2000m

The shell used was the Pzgr.39 rot which means modified panzergranate 39. It had a muzzle velocity of 625m/ second and a shell weight of 7.6 kg.

The soviet BR 350B would be almost as powerful, particulary against well sloped armour. The quite uncommon BR 350P would be clearly superior at 500 metres or less, particulary against vertical (not sloped) armour but useless at long range.

I have done some calculations on F34 tank guns and US M3 tank guns. The results indicate that the M3 would be superior against any armour that it ovematches (diameter of shell smaller than thickness of armour) thanks to better quality. But it would be less powerful when it is not overmatched because of lower ammount of Kinentic energy per square centimetre. The US M3 could penetrate 63mm RHA @ 914 metres using the M72 AP shot.

The problem with your question about the ability to penetrate face hardened armour is that only the surface would be hardened. Therefore the thinner the plate the better the quality.

Cheers

So german sources agree the jagdtiger could be penetrated. Of course, we can look at the Russian sources:

76 mm F-34, ZIS-5BR-350A68060°-IP=86

CP=69IP=79

CP=63IP=70

CP=59IP=63

CP=50IP=52

CP=43-90°-IP=89

CP=80IP=84

CP=76IP=78

CP=70IP=73

CP=63IP=65

CP=58-BR-350B60°-IP=89

CP=74IP=82

CP=69IP=76

CP=62IP=71

CP=55IP=55

CP=48-90°-IP=94

CP=86IP=90

CP=81IP=84

CP=75IP=78

CP=68IP=69

CP=62-BR-350P60°-CP=92CP=87CP=77n/an/an/a90°-CP=102CP=98CP=92n/an/an/a76 mm F-34, ZIS-5BR-350A68060°-IP=86

CP=69IP=79

CP=63IP=70

CP=59IP=63

CP=50IP=52

CP=43-90°-IP=89

CP=80IP=84

CP=76IP=78

CP=70IP=73

CP=63IP=65

CP=58-BR-350B60°-IP=89

CP=74IP=82

CP=69IP=76

CP=62IP=71

CP=55IP=55

CP=48-90°-IP=94

CP=86IP=90

CP=81IP=84

CP=75IP=78

CP=68IP=69

CP=62-BR-350P60°-CP=92CP=87CP=77n/an/an/a90°-CP=102CP=98CP=92n/an/an/a76 mm F-34, ZIS-5 is the gun you are looking for:

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

Note that with the p type ammo, penetration is possible up to about 500 meters.

So both the German and Russian sources agree. Your expectations, deputy, are not. First jagdtiger kill was to an american bazooka of all things. The jagdtiger should be used at range, not close in fighting. Against t34s moving fast, the lumbering jagdtiger having to pivot to fire would be disadvantaged in a close in knife fight. At 4000 meters, nothing can touch it and it did wreck havoc.

Last, an example of what could happen even against Shermans:

Otto Carius, a Tiger ace commanding 3 Jagdtigers of 512 battalion, reported an example of utter lack of training and morale that was unthinkable in German service up to that point in time: Facing half a dozen American AFVs from half a mile away, one of his Jagdtigers climbed a hill without lowering its gun first, missing the chance to fire before enemy could react. Upon getting repeatedly hit by 75 mm shells that could not penetrate the front armor of the Jagdtiger, the vehicle commander lost his nerve. Instead of backing down with his thick front armor forward, the Jagdtiger turned around on the hill exposing the weak side armor. The vehicle was penetrated and all 6 crew were lost as ammunition exploded

Rune

[Deputy]

Okay, I will hack the scenario and replace Jagtigers with either regular Tigers or King Tigers. That should make a major difference.

[Der Alte Fritz]

No it is not a Russian produced game at all and in fact is reckoned to one of the most historical games around.

I have just run tests on 7 T34/76 attacking 2 JdgTigers at close range (500m and under). First time around used 1943 T34s and they all died horribly without causing the Tigers a problem. Then I used 1945 T34 with a big load of Tungsten. Tigers killed about 4 T34 but then they both bot immobilised and the T34s were able to flank them. At under 100m i started to get side penetrations and at under 50m with normal AP. At no time did I get front penetratons, with 76mm guns with any ammo.

I am a good Russian tanker and used my patented Shoot and Scoot technique with veteran T34s but even so I had to close to under 100m to get side penetrations.

I imagine the 85mm would be a different story since the blast effect from this weapon will often disable a tank at any range.

[Redwolf]

I'll try it again. It was at long and close range. Didn't matter. They were mainly T34/76. And it didn't matter if it was frontal or side shots. Although most were frontal. Plus the 128mm gun seemed as worthless as a 50mm gun. One shot kills at a moving tank. I'm sorry, that's just plain BS. NONE of those tanks had gun stabilization systems back then. Something is definitely WRONG here. Just curious....was this sim also produced in Russia? I have seen WW2 sims produced from there that tended to give extreme advantages to their own equipment. IL-76 from Ubisoft is a good example.

I can see the JSII and JSIII tanks giiving Tigers a good fight. But T34s...I don't think so. Those tanks should be easy pickings for a Tiger of any type.

The game has specific problems. First of all it's pretty obvious that a duel between a standing shooter and a moving opponent in CMx1 has a bug that throws the hit probabilities off. The mover hits far too often.

Then, the code for zeroing in on part of a standing shooter is far too limited. A minimal movement, I think 15 meters, on part of the target and the zeroing in is gone.

Then there is universal spotting, that means that ambushing vehicles get too much return fire from clusters of tanks they shoot at, even if those are buttoned up. An ambusher in real life enjoys less opposition since each target tank has to spot it individually.

The gun damage and weak spot penetration probabilities in CMx1 seem OK when looked at in isolation. But they do not take the previously mentioned factors into account and the result is an unrealistically high, and by about an order of magnitude too high, chance of disabling a vehicle with normally safe front armour protection (when a cluster of guns shoots at it).

As a result, ambushing groups of vehicles from few standing shooters is one area where CMx1 is just broken.

[dieseltaylor]

And thats why I play CMAK: )

Redwolf is right but fortunately you can play the whole game using all the bits and it seems to gel reasonably well. CMAK though is the superior product.

BTW the idea that a Jagdtiger , or even a Tiger, would be allowed out by itself is fanciful as they were always meant to be in at least pairs to prevent being rushed and perhaps more importantly if one broke down then the other could look after it. I say look after it and though forbidden Tigers would pull other Tigers out of danger. And not infrequently it meant two Tigers having to be rescued.

[Deputy]

Thanks Redwolf! I couldn't put my finger on it but that pretty much sums it up. I was wondering about the "gun stabilization" thing too. I think they compensate for it by lowering the accuracy of a tank that is firing and moving. But I think in real life the "shoot and scoot" method was used much more frequently. Tanks are not stable platforms to shoot from by any stretch of the imagination. I served on a US M60A1 tank as a gunner and it bounced around with every dip or bump in the terrain. Until the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradley, firing on the move and getting a hit was more luck than skill. And a tank standing still is usually dead meat. Much easier to hit a stationary object than one moving. That's why it was so easy to wipe out Saddam's tanks in the first Iraq war.

dieseltaylor: You are correct. The "tank recovery vehicle" for a Tiger was another Tiger.

I WAS using them individually. I'll try a massed attack and see if things improve.

[Michael Emrys]

The game has specific problems. First of all it's pretty obvious that a duel between a standing shooter and a moving opponent in CMx1 has a bug that throws the hit probabilities off. The mover hits far too often.

Then, the code for zeroing in on part of a standing shooter is far too limited. A minimal movement, I think 15 meters, on part of the target and the zeroing in is gone.

Then there is universal spotting, that means that ambushing vehicles get too much return fire from clusters of tanks they shoot at, even if those are buttoned up. An ambusher in real life enjoys less opposition since each target tank has to spot it individually.

I sure discovered that to my dismay when I tried to play as the German in "Hornets' Nest". That should have been a shooting gallery for the Horniss, instead it was one for the T34s.

Michael

[Redwolf]

Leaving aside the question as to how much exactly is screwed up in CMx1 or not, a game like this will always work best for reasonably equal matches.

Small bunch of Shermans against small bunch of Panzy IVs will always work better than single *tiger against horde of T-34/76s.

The better a game is the more you can derive from that rule and the better exotic battles feel. Overall CMx1 isn't too bad. You can also make these sniper situations work better with suitable terrain in CMx1. The terrain needs to be keyholed to keep the unrealistic return fire down but not provide unwanted covered approaches.

[dieseltaylor]

I just replayed Hornets Nest and I remebered to put my Hornetsin the trees to minimise return fire. Worked well 64-36 against the AI and I was rushing it and not playing with all the smart moves. I did get them all killed - a touch of boredom crept in and I started trading shots. One to one no problem 2 to 1 and you are getting risky. The best one did 4 tanks and the worst 1. I do open fire early as in the time span the more they flittter about the further thay stay away from the important flags. As it was they came no nearer than 500 metres.

[Deputy]

So let me ask this....if some early T34s (say 2-3) are shooting at one King Tiger, do the chances of total destruction of the Tiger go up, even though the rounds SHOULD be pretty ineffective? I don't mean crippling effects, but total destruction of the King Tiger.

[dieseltaylor]

Basically yes the chances go up from not a chance in hell to not a chance in hell but mor costly.

Hail fire is what the Germans suffered from when attacking Russians - basically everything that could fire would. AT rifles were particularly instructed to go for the vision ports/blocks and this was effective. Tanks would carry extra but you were unlikely to try replacing it whilst under fire.

And every tanker was aware that a lucky shot might immobilise them - again an ordered Russian fire tactic. If it got too hot the Tigers may well back off. As CM does not go to that level of damage they sort of have the random disabling shot. I have managed it with 20mm AA firing non-stop turn after turn at a Tiger which was mainly head -on.

I have used hailfire from Valentine IX's which can hurt Tigers and generally 6 of them will kill it or the tactical AI will retreat it even if it is head-on. Presumably the TAC Ai appreciates that it might take a side penetration shot at a narrow angle. I am not sure that the T34/76 would get that respect.

[Redwolf]

So let me ask this....if some early T34s (say 2-3) are shooting at one King Tiger, do the chances of total destruction of the Tiger go up, even though the rounds SHOULD be pretty ineffective? I don't mean crippling effects, but total destruction of the King Tiger.

You have a chance of gun damage. The chance is per hit. This chance doesn't care how thick your front armour is.

You have a chance of immobilization. The chance is per hit. This chance doesn't care how thick your front armour is.

You have a chance of weak spot penetration. The chance is per hit. This supposedly cares about the armour thickness and reduces it by 30-40% with a 3% chance, so we have been told. But my impression was that the chance is higher and that the reduction is more. It will tell you when this happens, though.

A combination of the above events usually leads to the vehicle being abandoned by it's crew. Given constant chances your bigass vehicle is in trouble very quickly when the number of shots, and hence the number of hits gets very high. The game's problem is that the amount of return fire is unrealistically high in the battle scenario you describe, for reasons given in other posts. So the probabilities add up and your tin box is gone.

In the real world all these vehicles would be slower to squire the target, and the ambusher would hit much more often (in CMx1 the zeroing in is lost way too often so the ambusher has no real advantage). As a result in the real world you would usually be able to pick off the ambushed vehicles at a rate roughly equivalent to their ability to start firing back, or in other words you get to deal with them one by one.

[Deputy]

Well I did some editing of the scenario (Danube Blues) and added some JagdPanthers. WOW!!!! Major difference!!! Talk about can openers! The JagdPanthers made short work of the T34/85s. Definitely have to keep your distance from tank hunter teams, though.