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

[The_Capt]

Bil, yes I did, but I have, what I regard as, a healthy skepticism to statistical 'truth'. If the M4 was a tougher tank than previously represented then there should be some historical support from either the allied crews: showing a similar set of results (multiple strikes but failure to penetrate, from 75L48's) or German crews: instructions for 75L48 gunners to shoot at turrets, not the hull. I have read none of these but if they are out there I'm sure a forum member will correct me. Upon reflection I should have put 'super'-Sherman, suggesting my skepticism, not a verifiable fact.

Does the system reflect the wider field of view of german sights, allowing gunners to engage targets quicker, and does it give a first round advantage to sights with an integrated but crude range finder? Though at the range you were fighting at I doubt any ballistic drop need be compensated for, if you had engaged the Shermans at double the range do you think there would have been a greater advantage?

Is there a mechanism by which gunners can select which area to target, tracks, turret, etc, as historically seems to have happened.

Finally, regarding the firing small arms from in side tanks, I have read that the little metal protruberance, below the sight of the MP-40 was designed to hook onto the rim of a firing port?

Vark,

I think Steve will be along to address some of your concerns.

I can speak to range. Having played and tested the Pz IV against the Sherman (75, not the 76) the magic range band you are looking for is 900m+. In another QB we tried I was engaging head to head at 500-700 and the Pz IV still came out on the bottom. At 900m+ though the equation changes drastically. Here in tests I ran the Pz Iv was winning 8 out of 10 times as it superior gun, when compared to the 75, finally shines through and its armour can take a lot more hits.

As will be shown...when using the Pz IV, either stand well off and let the gun do the work OR be smart on how you manoeuvre.

[Vark]

Hope you are right Rocky, as for the posters stating the armour deficiencies of the PzIV, I agree completely. I found out the hard way playing CMBB, when mine lost a 2 v's 3 engagement playing "At the Zoo". I never questioned the barely adequate protection of the Pz IV, just its seemingly weak main armament, as Ghostrider stated, the German crews thought it had a great gun, no caveats. I just wonder why they thought this if it could struggle to take out the Western Allies most common tank, at short range.

Still, time will tell and I will see how the thrilling AAR unfolds, think the splitting of the first platoons combat power (HQ scouting alone) is a mistake but we shall see.

What about my other queries to do with optimum ranges for the PzIV and the modeling of different optics?

[panzermartin]

I seem to remember CMx1 didnt not distiguish turret vs hull size. CMx2 does. Wouldnt that make the PzIV a little better in CM:BN due to the harder to hit small turret?

[stikkypixie]

Hope you are right Rocky, as for the posters stating the armour deficiencies of the PzIV, I agree completely. I found out the hard way playing CMBB, when mine lost a 2 v's 3 engagement playing "At the Zoo". I never questioned the barely adequate protection of the Pz IV, just its seemingly weak main armament, as Ghostrider stated, the German crews thought it had a great gun, no caveats. I just wonder why they thought this if it could struggle to take out the Western Allies most common tank, at short range.

Still, time will tell and I will see how the thrilling AAR unfolds, think the splitting of the first platoons combat power (HQ scouting alone) is a mistake but we shall see.

What about my other queries to do with optimum ranges for the PzIV and the modeling of different optics?

I remember a discussion about the optics a while ago. Seems you have to be careful because other factors are equally important and only modelling better optics for German tanks might skew results unrealistically, unless the other factors are also taken into account (such as better stabilisation for the Allied tanks, etc...). I have no experience in this, but it seems like a hard balancing act.

[stikkypixie]

Only for the spotting calculation. You could hit a part of a vehicle even though the vehicle itself has not been spotted yet.

Best regards,

Thomm

Glad to hear, I did not get it all wrong .

[Vark]

Bah, thanks Capt, your answer and my request crossed each other. Thought the 1000m plus band would be the answer, as this was the range my CMAK tests suggested was the best. I wonder if the often open terrain of Russia was the main determining factor for the success of so many of their engagements? Good training, coupled with superior optics (not the quality but the design) high velocity guns and open terrain, allowing the optimum engagement ranges, equals lopsided kill ratios. In a close in fight surely the Shermans superior mobility, basic stabilisation and rapid turret traverse will triumph, surely?

[Vark]

Stikkypixe, I'm not a "Deutschland uber alles" panzer nut, but their use of the mils system, incorporated in their sighting systems and their wider fields of view allowed quicker and more accurate shooting than the allies rather basic sytems. Combat reports, from a variety of theatres, seem to agree, German tankers shot quickly and well, often achieving first round hits, a feat most Allied gunners struggled with. If the allies had compensatory factors then why not include them, CM2 seems to be a far more versatile system.

Talking of PZ IV's, having been in the one, at the Parola? tank museum in Finland I always laugh at people who trot out the, German tanks were well designed!

[The_Capt]

Bah, thanks Capt, your answer and my request crossed each other. Thought the 1000m plus band would be the answer, as this was the range my CMAK tests suggested was the best. I wonder if the often open terrain of Russia was the main determining factor for the success of so many of their engagements? Good training, coupled with superior optics (not the quality but the design) high velocity guns and open terrain, allowing the optimum engagement ranges, equals lopsided kill ratios. In a close in fight surely the Shermans superior mobility, basic stabilisation and rapid turret traverse will triumph, surely?

In the close fight the Pz IV player has to play with a lot of finess. Remember at close range the armour of the Pz IV is in fact inferior and one it gets in close enough for the 75mm to start punching thru it..well things get bad for the German player...a lesson Bil is learning in the opening of our game

It may seem a little jarring at first but I also ran tests at 500m between the Pz IV and Sherman M4A3 75 head to head and you can see the results definitely favour the Sherman but not as cleanly as they do at closer ranges. This is because the Pz IVs survive longer, get more shots off and have a better chance of doing some damage.

My own feeling on this is the overall depth of CMBN wrt armour is...er deeper. Factors like hull down. I have seen that the Pz IV is actually in worse shape hull down at some ranges because the only target offered is the weakest. Shermans can still shoot pretty damn accurate at 500m so offering your turret is actually more dangerous.

What should really be cooking everyones noodle is that this is ONE armoured match up. One of the thing I really liked about CM was the fact that, like chess you could learn how to move your little guys around and drop arty in a hour or two. But really learning how to play the game takes months/years. In playing CMBN, I get that same old feeling back.

[stikkypixie]

Stikkypixe, I'm not a "Deutschland uber alles" panzer nut, but their use of the mils system, incorporated in their sighting systems and their wider fields of view allowed quicker and more accurate shooting than the allies rather basic sytems. Combat reports, from a variety of theatres, seem to agree, German tankers shot quickly and well, often achieving first round hits, a feat most Allied gunners struggled with. If the allies had compensatory factors then why not include them, CM2 seems to be a far more versatile system.

Talking of PZ IV's, having been in the one, at the Parola? tank museum in Finland I always laugh at people who trot out the, German tanks were well designed!

Not saying that you are . Just saying it's a hard balancing act. I guess some of these factors are hard to quantify. How much more stable were the Allied guns for example? Hard to put a number on that. And you can go into absurd detail as well such as gun droop, or temperature changes. I guess there is a point of diminishing returns.

As far as I understand though each tank has it's own "field of vision" so with any luck the wider vision of the PzIV should already be in.

[Guest]

I remember a discussion about the optics a while ago. Seems you have to be careful because other factors are equally important and only modelling better optics for German tanks might skew results unrealistically, unless the other factors are also taken into account (such as better stabilisation for the Allied tanks, etc...). I have no experience in this, but it seems like a hard balancing act.

I'm sure Steve will be along to discuss more in depth, but I just wanted to chuck in.

There is no balancing to be done. You guys are still thinking through the filter of "design for effect". That's not how CMx2 is designed. Things are modeled from the ground up, not the other way around. Most things of any importance are explicitly modeled based on hard data.

There's no need to worry about whether BFC is choosing the right set of die rolls or "balancing" one side's tanks against another - Sherman models of varying types will perform as they actually did. PzIVs of various types will do the same. The trick here is reconciling the preconceptions that I think many of us (including me!) have, against the hard data.

[Vark]

What! No gun droop factors, no atmospheric variables, I'm shocked! Phil are any soft factors modeled, ie the gunner in a Sherman wetting himself because he has mis-identified a Pz IV for a Tiger, surely his first round effort is going to be somewhat affected? It's all well and good modeling hard systems, but these shiny machines with all their hard data are crewed by soft systems who can behave illogically, ramming a King Tiger comes to mind! So if these factors are not included, a Sherman will only perform the way it did if it was being crewed by Cylons, though that constantly scanning eye must play havoc with using a monocular sight!

[Michael Emrys]

...Jagd Panzer IV's, mounting the same gun as Bil's impotent Pz IV's.

I haven read the rest of the thread yet, so this may have already been replied to, but that statement is not true. The JPz IV mounted an L70 gun that was essentially the same as that on the Panther. Big difference.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

I haven read the rest of the thread yet, so this may have already been replied to, but that statement is not true. The JPz IV mounted an L70 gun that was essentially the same as that on the Panther. Big difference.

Michael

Not necessarily. Early production of the JPz IV sported the L48, and IIRC both versions saw action in France in CMBN's timeframe. I don't remember which version of the JPz IV was featured in the earlier AAR, tho. I actually think I brought this up in the AAR thread, but I don't remember what the ultimate answer was... I'm sure a search will turn it up.

[Sergei]

I haven read the rest of the thread yet, so this may have already been replied to, but that statement is not true. The JPz IV mounted an L70 gun that was essentially the same as that on the Panther. Big difference.

Michael

The late 'long' models did, while the original models had the L/48 gun. The JagdpIV/70 production only started in August and as far as I know they didn't make it to the western front during the time discussed here.

[Moon]

What! No gun droop factors, no atmospheric variables, I'm shocked! Phil are any soft factors modeled, ie the gunner in a Sherman wetting himself because he has mis-identified a Pz IV for a Tiger, surely his first round effort is going to be somewhat affected?

I can't quite make out if you're just being tonge-in-cheek or not but if this was a serious question, then the serious answer is that you have probably misunderstood what Phil meant with "hard data". All of the things you mentioned (morale, atmospheric effects, ballistics) are fully modeled in CMBN.

Martin

[Broadsword56]

I can't quite make out if you're just being tonge-in-cheek or not but if this was a serious question, then the serious answer is that you have probably misunderstood what Phil meant with "hard data". All of the things you mentioned (morale, atmospheric effects, ballistics) are fully modeled in CMBN.

Martin

It just gets better and better!

[Michael Emrys]

The late 'long' models did, while the original models had the L/48 gun. The JagdpIV/70 production only started in August and as far as I know they didn't make it to the western front during the time discussed here.

Ah. Okay. Thanks for refreshing my data.

Michael

[Barkhorn1x]

Not necessarily. Early production of the JPz IV sported the L48, and IIRC both versions saw action in France in CMBN's timeframe. I don't remember which version of the JPz IV was featured in the earlier AAR, tho. I actually think I brought this up in the AAR thread, but I don't remember what the ultimate answer was... I'm sure a search will turn it up.

The earlier AAR had two L48 versions.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1223262&postcount=80

[MikeyD]

I recently stumbled on a German field report on the effectiveness of armor in Normandy. They were very happy with their Panthers and Tigers in action (of course), they were even satisfied with the PzIV (grading on scale, I suppose). But the were not happy with their StuGs and Jpzs. The terrain had made all the difference. Their guns were set too low to the ground to shoot over Bocage hedge bases. One supposes roof mounted sights exacerbated the problem - seeing but not being able to shoot due to intervening terrain. I've actually seen this a couple times in the game. Bocage is not a JpzIV's best friend.

[ZPB II]

Sergei, you better put Emrys' response into your signature.

[stikkypixie]

I'm sure Steve will be along to discuss more in depth, but I just wanted to chuck in.

There is no balancing to be done. You guys are still thinking through the filter of "design for effect". That's not how CMx2 is designed. Things are modeled from the ground up, not the other way around. Most things of any importance are explicitly modeled based on hard data.

There's no need to worry about whether BFC is choosing the right set of die rolls or "balancing" one side's tanks against another - Sherman models of varying types will perform as they actually did. PzIVs of various types will do the same. The trick here is reconciling the preconceptions that I think many of us (including me!) have, against the hard data.

So how do you choose what is of importance? That's the balancing part.

[Fredrock1957]

I have to admit that all this information on the PzIV and M4, plus the balistic information is great... I do find myself laughing that a 4 minute slice in 'time' has caused this conversation... Thats why this group of guys are the best... But still 4 minutes.... I don't think Steve or Moon or anyone is sweating about the nature of this... Lets face it, BF produces the finest in wargames... now after 200-300 games if all the CM-ites are screaming the PzIV is not right then there might be a problem...

In CMAK I found that the PzIV was a really decent unit at ranges of 800-1200 meters... inside 700 meters and facing a 75mm it always seemed less effective with its defense less veniable.

Keep the conversations going it is very enlightening and awesome... and speaking of awesome... I can't wait for Bil's next update on the battle.... maybe there will be 5 Shermans KIA

[Vark]

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.

Mikey D, please try and dig out that report, sounds a real find! I also guess that the assault guns suffered from the limited traverse and poor field of view with their optics. If a Sherman got into a close quarter combat with a Stug, I pity the Stug. 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.

What are the turn rates of the AFV's in CMBN?

[Broadsword56]

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.

This also makes me think that if the Wehrmacht had been allowed to retreat from Normandy sooner and been able to save its Panzer formations (instead of losing them to attrition, air attack, and the final slaughter in the Falaise pocket and the hopeless Mortain counteroffensive), they would have given Allied armor a much tougher fight at the longer ranges and open spaces E and SE of Normandy where the Operation Cobra spearheads ultimately broke out and raced through. OTOH, the more open country would have made the Panzers even more vulnerable to air attack -- so maybe they were doomed anyway (?)

[Bil Hardenberger]

Minute 4 – Part 2

2nd Platoon Orders

I took a gamble this turn with 2nd Platoon. I sent Tank 2 straight across the danger zone to get to the trees on the other side of the clearing so I could potentially have them leap frog up the treelines on that side of the field in concert with Tank 1 on the other side.

Tank 1, I order to move quickly through the woods to the right of them and hunt that M-10. I am counting on the protection from the woods to help me in this.

Tank 1

When Tank 1 gets in the position in the image below, which by the way is blocked from view of the M-10 spotted last turn, it spots a second M-10!

Luckily for Tank 1 this M-10’s attention has been diverted elsewhere (as you'll see in a moment), or I might have been in trouble at this point.

When arriving in its position this second M-10 was blocked from Tank 1's view, and we have a simultaneous event occur… the M-10 had spotted Tank 1 and fired before it could respond, but in the top part of the image below you can see where the M-10 round impacted in the trees (white puff), and my Pz-IVH fired (yellow puff) at the same time.

Thankfully this little risk paid off as the M-10 now sits smoking on top of the hill. Note that I hit it in the lower front hull (see the hit text?) because I was firing upwards and this M-10 was not hull down. Had it been hull down then I most likely would have lost this tank.

Tank 2

Well he almost made it across… he slowed down in order to cross the road and it was a that exact moment that the second M-10 on the hill got a successful firing solution and killed the panzer.

At the end of minute 4 1st Platoon’s HQ tank had yet to reach the end of its planned movement, but it has a pretty good chance to perhaps get a flank shot on the second M-10 next turn.

Also, please note that I still have three tanks from 2nd Platoon and the two HQ tanks sitting in their start positions. Now that I'm getting a feel for how Warren is deploying (Shermans on my right coming down AA3 and M-10's on my left on AA2) I think I can start maneuvering the remainder of my force.

Next: Minute 5