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

[Abrams]

Remember also that you can play QBs with the computer picking the stats for you. Just like in CMx1 you can have a situation where you play a small, quality force against a larger rather crappy force. I personally really liked that type of game.

Steve

Ad fog , and you have Arracourt ...

green Panther crews jumping ship when attacked by Crack 4th Armored M5 Stuarts ...

Exciting games !

[Bil Hardenberger]

Steve,

The calculations done by ShakyJake suggest that both of them are roughly equivalent a-priori, but of course if one of them is in a significantly better tactical position than the other then it will have a significant advantage (as it happens in the AAR).

I'm confused, in your estimation for this AAR, which side has a "significantly better tactical advantage"? The Shermans? If so explain that to me using the terrain advantages etc. that they have on their side versus the Pz-IVs.

All this talk of angles leaves me cold... do you think a WW2 tank commander actually worrried if his tank was 20 degrees off axis or whatever to an enemy tank? Of course not, he only cared that the strongest part of his tank, the front hull, was facing the enemy... I say get into as good a position with your units as you can, let the steel fly and hope for the best.

Things will usually take care of themselves in the long run, but if things do go bad then it doesn't necessarily mean you were outplayed or out maneuvered... often you are only outgunned or outclassed with superior equipment.

In almost every case in this particular game that I lost a tank, mine got off the first and sometimes the second shot before getting hit by return fire... that is what I call superior tactical positioning... regardless of the outcome.

[Battlefront.com]

So, which tank is better head to head at 300 meters? The calculations done by ShakyJake suggest that both of them are roughly equivalent a-priori, but of course if one of them is in a significantly better tactical position than the other then it will have a significant advantage (as it happens in the AAR).

Well, I don't disagree with this depending on your definition of "roughly equivalent". The Sherman has a slight edge when the two are facing dead on each other. Not a great edge, but a slight edge because the Sherman's glacis (which is the largest part of its profile) has a small chance of deflecting a direct hit while none of the PzIV's surfaces have a chance against the Sherman's gun. As the angle is changed the Sherman's ability to survive a hit increases quicker than the same angle of change with the PzIV. Again, not dramatic difference here, but the Sherman does have a small edge.

Steve

[kulik]

All this talk of angles leaves me cold... do you think a WW2 tank commander actually worrried if his tank was 20 degrees off axis or whatever to an enemy tank? Of course not, he only cared that the strongest part of his tank, the front hull, was facing the enemy... I say get into as good a position with your units as you can, let the steel fly and hope for the best.

Are you sure? I always thought this was the proper way to position to position a panzer in WW2:

HAND ME THE T-34 MANUAL!!! Im pretty sure i can dig out the historical version of this sketch.

[Redken]

Tigerfibel (Tiger tank Manual)

Source: http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

[Pandur]

i find it funny to see that people are still asking and wondering about the same stuff others and myself did ask about shortly after CMSF was released.

setting the turret facing with a cover arc and the hull facing with a "face" command was requested by myself as early as weeks after its release. it should be no problem actually but it seems the UI makes up the problem where none should be. as it is the case with all other requested commands like cover armor arc and more movement commands as example.

[kulik]

Thanks Redken, although i don't remember the sausage resemblance.

[user38]

Tigerfibel (Tiger tank Manual)

Source: http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml

Thanks, that explains everything.

[stikkypixie]

i find it funny to see that people are still asking and wondering about the same stuff others and myself did ask about shortly after CMSF was released.

setting the turret facing with a cover arc and the hull facing with a "face" command was requested by myself as early as weeks after its release. it should be no problem actually but it seems the UI makes up the problem where none should be. as it is the case with all other requested commands like cover armor arc and more movement commands as example.

? You can do this in CMSF no? I just tested this, always remember to set the face command first.

[stikkypixie]

Steve,

First of all, thank you very much for your quick answer !!

Could you plese re-read the post by ShakyJake?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240274#post1240274

As you can see, his calculations reveal that the Sherman needs a lateral angle around 30 degrees to make the penetration by the Pz IV-H 75mm L/48 unlikely (in the upper hull front).

On the other hand, ShakyJake’s calculations show also that if the Pz IV-H has a lateral angle around 30 degrees the penetration (in the hull) by the Sherman’s 75mm L/40 APCBC is also unlikely.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240414#post1240414

Therefore, at this short range, no tank has a-priori advantage over the other. As you say, “the PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.” I fully agree with this statement.

But if you reverse the situation interchanging the position of both tanks in such a way that the PzIV strikes the Sherman dead on (in the upper hul), and the Sherman strikes the PzIV (in the hull) with a lateral angle (of around 30 degrees), then the Sherman should die easily while the PzIV should have a high chance of surviving.

My point is that we have found a very good explanation for the facts that we are seeing in the AAR, but the Sherman tank is not surviving because it is inherently better than the PzIV at this short range. It is surviving because it is being hit with a lateral angle, while the PzIV is dying because it is being hit dead on. If we interchange their positions the result would be the opposite.

So, which tank is better head to head at 300 meters? The calculations done by ShakyJake suggest that both of them are roughly equivalent a-priori, but of course if one of them is in a significantly better tactical position than the other then it will have a significant advantage (as it happens in the AAR).

There are plenty Shermans burning in AAR. I don't see the problem?

[PanzerMiller]

What a great AAR...keep it up, gentlemen! Feed us more...

Once again I'm fascinated by these intense discussions of armor facing and penetration statistics using stacks of data. We've got the luxury of time and (generally) a cool head between turns to consult these data and plot the moves of our pixeltruppen based on our assessment of the probabilities of any given outcome. But what was going through the TC's head in the field? Did Wittmann consult the Tigerfibel in his cupola? Did he have it committed to memory for recall at just the right moment? Did he study the comparative armor and weapon statistics of his own and his enemy's equipment during down time? Or did he and his comrades -- on both sides of the field -- make tactical decisions through instinct and intuition? Bil alludes to this on the previous page, and it's always been a question for me.

What was actually going on in the TC's head during an engagement?

[zukkov]

"What was actually going on in the TC's head during an engagement?"

according to the movie battle of the bulge when sgt guffy got his turret shredded by a german 88, "ram em!"

[vincere]

I'm Curious whether the Jar or anybody else predicted this before this empirical testing?

Also is defenders comflage modeled- so defenders tanks and ATs much harder to spot if they don't move? In CMSF infantry AT can be a bitch to spot.

Very interesting AAR- tipping me towards pre-order.

[TheVulture]

? You can do this in CMSF no? I just tested this, always remember to set the face command first.

I never managed to do it reliably. With the British warriors and bulldogs, which had solid side armour (due to ERA layer) but which are very weak vs serious At from the front or rear, I always wanted to park them side on to threats and point the turret at them. Over time they would invariably turn their front to the enemy, leading far too frequently to an entirely unnecessary death.

[DaveyJJ]

Are you sure? I always thought this was the proper way to position to position a panzer in WW2:

HAND ME THE T-34 MANUAL!!! Im pretty sure i can dig out the historical version of this sketch.

Yup, that's the way. Despite it's many flaws, the MMORPG World of Tanks taught me this specific, very important lesson about the Tiger and Tiger II. That if I angled my front to the approaching enemy about 20 degrees of centre, my survivability in a fight went way up when the shells start flying and hitting. That slight off-angle makes a lot of difference to a Tiger.

Still felt the Tiger's armour was outclassed by many other tanks at my "tier" but I'd generally hang back in fights with my upgraded main weapon and act as sniper for my team ... when an enemy got engaged with another team member or bottled up by terrain and offered a weak side or rear shot, I could generally do a lot of damage.

[stikkypixie]

I never managed to do it reliably. With the British warriors and bulldogs, which had solid side armour (due to ERA layer) but which are very weak vs serious At from the front or rear, I always wanted to park them side on to threats and point the turret at them. Over time they would invariably turn their front to the enemy, leading far too frequently to an entirely unnecessary death.

Imagine if Challengers did NOT turn the strongest aspect to the threat. Probably too much micromanagement.

[c3k]

I disagree. Drivers were TRAINED to offset the hull from the enemy. Was it done every time? Shrug.

Ken

[PanzerMiller]

I disagree. Drivers were TRAINED to offset the hull from the enemy. Was it done every time? Shrug.

So per my question from earlier today: Did the TC do this because they were saying to themselves "I've got Xmm of frontal armor and that enemy tank over there with its Ymm gun can penetrate Zmm of armor from a range of YYm with an armor angle of ZZdegrees"? Or was this practice of offset just basic doctrine, largely independent of the specific details of the situation?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I would think that it is a fine and dandy practise in theory but in practise battles may be too fast and hectic to go by the book.

Sure, in long range engagements this angling of armour would probably get done a lot. But in a close range combat where one side or both stumbled in to the other I reckon priority was given to getting a shot off and being ready to back out of trouble.

[Bil Hardenberger]

You guys are going to have to show me in the literature, in English please, where this was common practice.

Becasue right now, I don’t believe any of it, at least I doubt tanks offset their hulls to the enemy by 20 degrees or whatever in action. I’ve never read any anecdotes that speak of such a thing, nor can I find reference to this practice in any of the period manuals I have.

I don't doubt it's effectiveness, but I do doubt that it was actually practiced in the field. Psychologically alone, if I were a tanker I would want to face the strongest part of my tank towards the enemy guns.. not do some fancy angling thing that also exposed the flank of my hull.

In short, prove it to me. Nobody has done that yet. Show it to me in both the German and American literature. I don't care about the Russian, they are not part of the discusson relevant to this AAR.

So per my question from earlier today: Did the TC do this because they were saying to themselves "I've got Xmm of frontal armor and that enemy tank over there with its Ymm gun can penetrate Zmm of armor from a range of YYm with an armor angle of ZZdegrees"? Or was this practice of offset just basic doctrine, largely independent of the specific details of the situation?

Of course not.. not many engineers commanded tanks (although I'm sure there were some). They saw an enemy tank, they fired at it.. they didn't sit there with their sliderules calculating the angle of offset and the weight of their shell, carrying the one and then subtracting for the head wind, only then deciding they better not fire because they can't penetrate in the current situation.. BS I say, they would just open fire and hope for the best.. if their best wasn't good enough they would get the hell out of the area.

[LongLeftFlank]

Elmar, agree about the backing up route being a priority, which reminds me of another interesting point.

Reversing a tracked vehicle, especially offroad, for any distance is not a straightforward operation. Tanks (WWII tanks anyway) don't have rearview mirrors and backing up blind into unknown ground could quickly hang you up on a stump or boulder, or into mud. Now imagine doing that under fire (i.e. where the TC is otherwise occupied and can't guide the driver)!

Basically, you'd want to retrace the path you used coming in. Which means you actually don't want to change the orientation of your tracks after you reach your firing position. Or at least I wouldn't. I'd take not becoming an immobile sitting duck over a possibly marginally better armour facing any day. And if I'm not scared of bogging it's probably pretty open ground and I'm exposed to shooters from multiple angles anyway.

Not that I want to turn this game into Bogmat Mission or anything, but it seems to me there should be a heightened bog percentage for tracks reversing more than about 20 feet at a time on a battlefield, even more if they try it buttoned up. Any thoughts?

[PanzerMiller]

Of course not..

Couldn't agree more, Bil...

[GhostRider3/3]

Couldn't agree more, Bil...

Yep.. going to have to agree on that one as well. For us in the Infantry... with Long range reaching instruments of death... we may calculate windage etc... but for the Armor guys its always been.. "Send it!"

And then there was mass amounts of destruction!....

[Gromit]

IMO if your life hangs in the balance you are more inclined to ensure getting the first shot off while stopped, not pussy-footing the tank around to achieve some optimal angle of the hul... BANG!! (uh, you're dead)

There's no do-overs or mulligans in real life.

So I say BS to all this fidgity fine-tuning stuff.

[kulik]

"Russian Tank Tactics Against German Tanks" from Tactical and Technical Trends

The following U.S. military intelligence report on Russian tank tactics against German panzers was originally published in Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 16, Jan. 14, 1943.

cit.:

"(2) In order to decrease the angle of impact of enemy shells, thereby decreasing their power of penetration, we should try to place our tanks at an angle to the enemy."

link- http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/russian-tank-tactics-wwii.html

Im sure i saw a historic picture of a tank positioned at an angle to impacting round even with the formula where lateral angle was part of the equation for armor penetration. The text suggested to not face the threat frontally. I suspect it was a russian manual though (that's why i instantly thought of t-34 ).