A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[Wrath of Dagon]

Again tends to support the idea that alot of the tactical victories enjoyed in the East were achievable mainly because the terrian allowed the Germans to play to their armour strengths.

Bad Russian tactics, inferior training, crappy tanks. The Germans knew all they had to do was to take out the HQ tank, and the rest would lose radio communication.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, here I am! Before starting I will have to remind people to not get their knickers in a twist about an extremely small sampling of game results from the very beginning portion of a single game. You'd think you guys would be used to the concepts of probability, but sometimes it seems you forget and wander off

The modeling in CM:BN is far more varied, factually based, and accurate than what we had in CMx1. This may result in some differences in results from similar matchups in CMx1. However, if such differences come about it is more likely than not that CMx1 had it wrong, not CM:BN.

Let's go back and sort through the various bits of evidence here. Even accounting for things like production flaws with the Sherman's armor, the stats tell us that ALL ELSE being equal the Sherman M4A3 (SPECIFICALLY) is more likely to survive a close range hit than a PzIV is. Other matchups between different models of Shermans at different ranges require different data to conclude which has the better chance of doing what.

As The_Capt aptly stated, the Shermans in this battle are operating well within their own "sweet spot" vs. a PzIV. At this range they should have an advantage as long as crew Experience, Morale, etc. are fairly equal. Move the same Shermans out to 1200m or so and the advantage is more towards the PzIV.

Gunnery modeling is quite complex. The PzIV does have some advantages, but most of those are neutralized at this range. We had an EXTREMELY detailed discussion about this internally led by a real life tanker who dug really deep into data to help us figure out what was important to model and how much it influenced the overall outcome.

At about 700m or greater the Germans had a gunnery system that allowed them to compute range quicker than the US system. Under this range, they were about the same since the US system was optimized for the closer ranges. Which makes sense because the Sherman 75 wasn't much good as a long range shooter. Putting a 10x scope made by Zeiss on a BB Gun doesn't really do much, does it? Likewise you're not likely to hit targets at 1000m using iron sights on a 7.62 cal sniper rifle.

To bring this back around to this particular battle...

The Shermans are pretty much operating against the PzIVs within optimal circumstances. They are close, they are facing full front, and are in good numbers. And let's not forget that there is at least one M-10 involved that apparently got some shots off before Bil even spotted it. A M-10 can rip apart a PzIV with pretty much any hit.

Did Bil get a little unlucky here? A little, but not much. The odds were in Warren's favor and therefore the potential for the outcome going against Bil was there before the first shot was fired. But as has been hinted, that doesn't mean it stays that way!

Steve

[GhostRider3/3]

Awesome Bil! was there any way you could have fired a couple of smoke rounds with Tank 2 before you moved(I dont think you can tell the tank to fire smoke first, (delay) then move. By now your opponent is going to realize your flanking desire..

Anyways I agree with that even in Cmak CMBB, that the Mk IV was best at ranges of over 800+ meters vs Sherman and T-34.... you defeninetely have to know your strength and weakness. (Book of 5 rings...LOL) Distance is a good thing with the Pz IV.

That being said this battle looks more like a Close Quarters battle with tanks. Under 1000m

Bil what are the ranges of thes past 2 minutes... the engagements?

Thanks.. everythings looks so wonderful... Dang! I am defentitely pre-ordering this Friday!

[Bil Hardenberger]

Awesome Bil! was there any way you could have fired a couple of smoke rounds with Tank 2 before you moved(I dont think you can tell the tank to fire smoke first, (delay) then move. By now your opponent is going to realize your flanking desire..

Ha! Yes I could have done that... and in retrospect I should have.

Bil what are the ranges of thes past 2 minutes... the engagements?

ranges... in 1st Platoon's sector all ranges have been around 500m so far. For second Platoon, Tank 2 was killed by the M-10 at around 600M (I think) and the M-10 I killed was around 400m.

I will try to record the ranges for all further engagements.

[Her Klink]

Why do the American tanks deploy smoke when they come under fire, but German tank 3 does not? It seems like some smoke would have helped cover it's attempt to redeploy. Is that due to equipment or tactics?

[Guest]

Well the Cylon reference was obviously tongue in cheek but the other points were not. I took exception to the claim that an in game PZ IV will behave like a real Pz IV, the crew is the deciding factor in most encounters and the crews state needs to be accurately reflected. Trouble is working out how much a crewmans efficiency is degraded by sleepless nights, a cold or suffering from hayfever or minor injuries is an approximate science at best and means a reversion to designing for outcome.

Every crew member has individual morale, fitness, condition, tasks that he is performing... crew state IS reflected and is modeled *separately* from vehicle capabilities. Veteran crews don't give their tank a +2 to Shooting, weakened or unfit crews don't give their tank a -3 to Spotting The Guys Wot Shoot At Us. They are fuzzy-logic driven entities that perform their tasks more or less efficiently and well depending on a very wide variety of factors, and they work in concert to fight their tank, just as a real crew would. So I'd say we're still not "reverting" to design for outcome.

But I wasn't speaking to crew efficiency. You'll note that I didn't say "behave", I said "perform", and I spoke to particular models of tanks. The discussion here has been regarding tank performance in A vs B situations. I stated that models of Shermans will perform as they did. Models of PzIV will perform as they did. A veteran crew with hayfever has nothing to do with how the ballistics and armor perform.

[Rocky Balboa]

(I think) and the M-10 I killed was around 400m.

I will try to record the ranges for all further engagements.

You killed an M-10? I don't recall reading that in your battle reports ... hmmmm since you've let the cat out of the bag, it looks like you owe us another installment. Pictures please or it didnt happen

[Bil Hardenberger]

Rocky, back up one page and I think you will find a treat.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

You killed an M-10? I don't recall reading that in your battle reports ... hmmmm since you've let the cat out of the bag, it looks like you owe us another installment. Pictures please or it didnt happen

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1239586&postcount=350

EDIT: Beaten by Bil.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh... and let's not forget that this battle was done a few versions ago and while the game is still being tweaked. As a direct result of this battle, as it so happens, Charles did make crews a little more "skittish" when hit and not killed. How much this tweak would have affected the outcome of this particular battle is unknown.

Steve

[Vark]

Bil, I take it you were not aware of the Pz IV's vulnerability v's Shermans before the selection, with the benefit of hindsight what tank would you have picked? Could you have bought a platoon of Panthers, for the same points?

Could you have dismounted a crew to scout, before dashing across the gap? Gosh isn't hindsight great, great AAr, very clear backed with excellent screenshots, when you have recovered from this one, please can you do another one or get somebody to use the same simple style.

Why did No2 slow down for crossing the road, does the slight camber cause an effect? If so, wow.

Wrath of Dagon, hmm, methinks you might like to study some actual combat accounts, from both sides, not the 125 T-34's for no loss school (oh, that's just before breakfast they really get cracking after they've had their bratwurst!). Remember, alot of the infamous accounts were only taken from the German side and accorded complete veracity, even though some of the commanders involved were known for highly dubious and selective memory recall, often to boost their personal reputation. These accounts were then used as morale boosters for Western forces who opposed the Warsaw Pact, similarly out numbered and with a similar reliance on 'technology' and superior training. Though this itself was a subjective matter as Warsaw Pact tactics were always observed through the lens of NATO tactical doctrine and unsuprisingly found wanting. And the T-34 is a crap tank, wow, so many of my cherished beliefs, about a subject I've studied for 35 years, destroyed, I can't take it any more, I tell ya!

Steve, thanks for the reply, do you think that as computers become increasingly powerful (MIPS) and games, like yours, become increasingly accurate long held academic assumptions will be challenged? Historical re-enactors are changing the way historians see the ancient world, especially in the study of warfare, will CM games of the future cause historians to seek new explanations for events (outcomes being easier to determine/revise than causes which therefore tend to follow much repeated assumptions).

Talking of Jagd Pz IV's, wasn't the L70 model called Guderian's duck because it was so nose heavy, long barelled gun plus armour, it easily bogged?

[Rocky Balboa]

Rocky, back up one page and I think you will find a treat.

Hah saved by a tree, that's what I call razor thin but your love for the evergreens pays off!!

Unfortunately the US still has the advantage. At this range you must maneuver to try and set up flanking shots. He can pretty much hunker down and wait for you to move hoping to observe your movements and get a shot off before you can.

[vetacon]

Great AAR gents.

Bil H - your screenshots are fantastic - thanks for putting in the time and effort to show us all this.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Wrath of Dagon, hmm, methinks you might like to study some actual combat accounts, from both sides, not the 125 T-34's for no loss school (oh, that's just before breakfast they really get cracking after they've had their bratwurst!). Remember, alot of the infamous accounts were only taken from the German side and accorded complete veracity, even though some of the commanders involved were known for highly dubious and selective memory recall, often to boost their personal reputation. These accounts were then used as morale boosters for Western forces who opposed the Warsaw Pact, similarly out numbered and with a similar reliance on 'technology' and superior training. Though this itself was a subjective matter as Warsaw Pact tactics were always observed through the lens of NATO tactical doctrine and unsuprisingly found wanting. And the T-34 is a crap tank, wow, so many of my cherished beliefs, about a subject I've studied for 35 years, destroyed, I can't take it any more, I tell ya! ?

The kill ratio during Kursk was around 8 to 1, and that's with the Russians on the defensive, according to Glanz's book.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil, I take it you were not aware of the Pz IV's vulnerability v's Shermans before the selection, with the benefit of hindsight what tank would you have picked? Could you have bought a platoon of Panthers, for the same points?

Could you have dismounted a crew to scout, before dashing across the gap? Gosh isn't hindsight great, great AAr, very clear backed with excellent screenshots, when you have recovered from this one, please can you do another one or get somebody to use the same simple style.

Why did No2 slow down for crossing the road, does the slight camber cause an effect? If so, wow.

I would have still chose Pz-IVs.. Panthers and Tigers are too much for Shermans in a fight like this and I wanted something that could fight on fairly even grounds with the Shermans I knew I was going to face.

I could have dismounted a crew to scout if I had wanted, yes.

As for the road.. yep, when the tank hit the ditches along side the road and the raised road bed it had to slow down as it was moving full speed across that ground. If the road hadn't been there I still think that tank would have made that dash safely.

Wow indeed.

[YankeeDog]

Talking of Jagd Pz IV's, wasn't the L70 model called Guderian's duck because it was so nose heavy, long barelled gun plus armour, it easily bogged?

I've read same. I've also read that, due to the fact that the L70 barrel stuck far out in front of the hull, and was relatively low to the ground, moving over uneven terrain could be tricky -- transitioning from a downslope to an upslope and the like, there was a danger of driving the gun barrel right into the ground. That can't be good for accuracy.

I don't expect CMBN will be able to model such an oddity, but it sure would look funny see an AFV hung up on its own barrel, ass-end in the breeze...

[GhostRider3/3]

Geesh I hope I did this right. Picture of a Jagd Pz IV/70 Front.

The First picture is a Pz IV/70 although the barrel is long it can be secured, as with picture #3. The center picture is the JgPz IV/48 Shorter barrel. I did read that the Jagd Pz IV/70 from a drivers perspective was difficult to manuever, but again this was during the battle of the Bulge which was not ideal by any means to be effective tank country. In ambush or in open field with its low profile it was however a effective Tank Killer. When I mean open field I mean that it had the ability to manuever and could bring its 75mm L/70 to bear at distance with the enemy. The greater the range from the enemy the less it had to worry about flank penetration. The front was well sloped and armored for ranges over 1000m. But at that range could easily penetrate most Allied Vehicles. I do not think the Stugs although somewhat successful, and the Jagd Pzers were great at offensive manuevers, but best deployed defensively.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, thanks for the reply, do you think that as computers become increasingly powerful (MIPS) and games, like yours, become increasingly accurate long held academic assumptions will be challenged?

I don't think so, I know so Even CMBO did that to some extent. Up until CMBO wargames were usually painfully biased by the "outcome based" views of the designers. The loud cries from players who preferred German tanks, in particular, were heard quite loudly. I swear if I once again hear people arguing with me that there should be 5 dead Shermans before 1 Panther gets knocked out I might just shut down the Forum as a form of collective punishment

Historical re-enactors are changing the way historians see the ancient world, especially in the study of warfare, will CM games of the future cause historians to seek new explanations for events (outcomes being easier to determine/revise than causes which therefore tend to follow much repeated assumptions).

I think one of the really neat things about CM:BN is that you can have unexpected results (i.e. things which appear to fly against conventional understandings) which spark discussions like this. In turn that causes people to dig into the details of the engagement and try to figure out how the outcome came to be. If CM:BN does what it is supposed to do, the answers should be there and they should make sense once they are examined.

And lest we forget... CM:BN is a game and it can often be played very differently than real war was "played". It is impossible for the inherent artificial nature of the game to not have some impact on the results, no matter how detailed and accurate the systems of the game are.

Steve

[The_Capt]

Ok, to add to Minute 4 Pt 2.

At this point I believed (committing my First Sin) that Bil's force was cut in half. I had 4 dead Pz IVs on the board all for the loss of a single M10. I estimated Bil had 3-4 Pz IVs left to my 7 pieces left on the board.

As everyone is going on about, the CMBN Sherman is no pushover especially at these ranges, shrugging off frontal hits and smiting my foes to burning hulks.

BUT (and this is a very big "but"..tee hee) Bil was not anywhere near an unwinnable position. He had a lot going for him.

1. His average crew experience was Crack. Mine was Regular.

2. He still had 8 tanks left.

3. He was in a good position.

So at this point my mission was clear...drive in kill the last of his "last three-four" beasties. And here I committed;

The_Capt's Great Sin #2. A Tank Destroyer is not a Tank so don't try and use it like one.

In my haste to "Kill Bil" I pushed two M10s well forward with may tanks rather than keep them back on that hill for overwatch, especially on my right flank.

The other bad news is that I was pushing up AA3...and straight into a potential trap.

[panzermartin]

Does CM:BN take into account the small profile of the PzIV turret front?

Its quite a small area, the more resisntat gun mantlet is half of it almost. I would expect this to be hard to hit when hull down.

[Other Means]

The other bad news is that I was pushing up AA3...and straight into a potential trap.

Holy crap, this is like Flash Gordon.

Does CM:BN take into account the small profile of the PzIV turret front?

Its quite a small area, the more resisntat gun mantlet is half of it almost. I would expect this to be hard to hit when hull down.

Everything is explicitly modelled.

[Vark]

Yankee Dog, heard the same thing, just hope all the different vehicles ideosyncratic behaviours can be shown somehow, it gives them a character. There is a famous Ardennes photo of a Jagd Pz IV Lang negotiating a fence and ditch, what is interesting is that it comes from a clip which shows just how slow the beast is.

moving.

17-28 seconds into clip

Phillip I don't want to let this debate degenerate into semantic argument about the meaning of perform versus behave, I really do appreciate though the way you are trying to give the gamer a quasi-realistic look at WWII combat. I was quite iffy about the game (US not my favourites and was holding out for the Brits) but the more I read, the more my queries are answered, not ignored, the closer I come to buying the damn thing. Good job I have quit all but my basic responsibilities at work, otherwise it would be early morning gaming, or persuading my wife to see her parents whilst I, ahem, work!

Wrath of Dagon, thanks for making my point by using the example of Kursk.

[GhostRider3/3]

Yankee Dog, heard the same thing, just hope all the different vehicles ideosyncratic behaviours can be shown somehow, it gives them a character. There is a famous Ardennes photo of a Jagd Pz IV Lang negotiating a fence and ditch, what is interesting is that it comes from a clip which shows just how slow the beast is.

moving.

17-28 seconds into clip

Phillip I don't want to let this debate degenerate into semantic argument about the meaning of perform versus behave, I really do appreciate though the way you are trying to give the gamer a quasi-realistic look at WWII combat. I was quite iffy about the game (US not my favourites and was holding out for the Brits) but the more I read, the more my queries are answered, not ignored, the closer I come to buying the damn thing. Good job I have quit all but my basic responsibilities at work, otherwise it would be early morning gaming, or persuading my wife to see her parents whilst I, ahem, work!

Wrath of Dagon, thanks for making my point by using the example of Kursk.

Not really wanting to get into a debate on the effectiveness of the JPz Iv/70 but Im sorry the video really does not do the vehicle justice. Traversing muddy sloped ground? Hell any tank back then was not doing much over 35km/hr The Jagd Pz. IV/70 did have a top speed of 40km/hr give or take. (25mph) Compared to the Pz. IV H was 26mph or 10mph off road.

Now compare that to the Sherman which could do about 25-30mph or roughly maybe 12mph off road.

[Battlefront.com]

Everything is explicitly modelled.

Actually, if you think about it everything is implicitly modeled because rounds have their flight paths traced until they hit something. That something is whatever the 3D polygons are. So if it hits turret front, it's turret front. If it hits lower front hullo, it's lower front hull. The relative angle of impact is also determined "naturally" through knowledge of the angle of the round vs. the angle of whatever was hit. It's all there and so there is never a need to ask a question like "is this portion of a particular tank modeled?" because the answer is always "yes".

With the old CMx1 system we did have to explicitly simulate things because inherently nothing was simulated. Flight paths were not traced, polygons in the 3D world meant nothing, etc. Instead probability was used to determine where something hit and the results calculated from there.

Steve

[Vark]

Relating to Captains eagerness to rush his armour forward, just how vulnerable are infantry to direct fire HE, in CMBN? I used to get mightily sick of having direct fire HE, especially from anti-tank guns, hit fast moving infantry and effectively kill a squad, in under a minute. I always thought that targetting small moving targets with a hand cranked, low-slung weapon, using a restricted field of view sight, would be hard. Sure if you have TP's layed out and an infantry unit comes close, or if they enter a building, then let the mayhem begin, but accounts from gunners seemed to suggest moving AFV targets, let alone infantry, were not easy prey, hence obstacles such as mines, trenches and natural choke points being used, in conjuction with them.

Steve, yup, had a few pre-suppositions about Tigers corrected by your earlier efforts, especially against 76mm armed Shermans, and yes, hit the reference pages only to find the oft used quotes, about the two tanks were a little misleading. Pattons Best was a fantastic destroyer of myths as well, especially how bloody hard it is to move tanks around, so perhaps that is one of the real reasons we game, to act as a spur to more research. Thanks to you I have a far better understanding of combat operations in and and around Wiltz, Stalingrad, Kursk and Normandy. My reference library grew rapidly as well, as I designed scenarios or played existing ones and I scoured places for hints on how the forces historically fought, all because of a game. I still though curse you for creating such an addictive and immersive game, damn, you give Peggle a run for its money!

I wonder if the military aphorism "If the advance is going well you are walking into an ambush" is going to be proved correct, on tender hooks now, don't let the Krauts off the hook Capt, you have infantry dammit, use them.