Panzer V against any US tank

[Bastables]

Gotta be a typo I reckon. This is the armour for an M4A2:

Hull 51-108mm@34-90°

Superstructure 64mm@43°

Turret 76mm@60°

Mantlet 89mm@90°

The Hull armour is pretty thick but 108mm at 90° is not going to be 25 times better that 76mm @60°

Did the M4 really have a Glacis as such, doesn't look like it in many pictures. How is the Glacis distinguished from the "nose" ?

That's at side oblique angles along with vertical sloping, Germans constructed their tables at 30deg side on angle. Jentz actually states this when discussing/introducing the table:

"The Penetration ranges were determined based on the assumption that the tank stood at a side angle of 30degrees to the incoming round."

German understanding of armour config

---

| Turret/mantlet

\ Glacis

/ nose

If applicable such as in stepped armour config like Panzer IV, tigers and Cromwell ect you also have a drivers front plate.

[Magpie_Oz]

"The Penetration ranges were determined based on the assumption that the tank stood at a side angle of 30degrees to the incoming round."

Is that going to make the Glacis 25 times better than the turret front though?

[LemuelG]

So who's good enough at math to calculate the 'real' thickness of the Sherman Glacis plate at that angle?

[Magpie_Oz]

Check this out:

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

[JasonC]

viajero - I am pretty sure I didn't recommend human wave anything. And you can easily send artillery to the middle of a forest - not all missions are reactive fire on point targets. You are allowed to pre plan missions, and you are allowed to use the circular barrage pattern. Also, if the Germans are so deep in the trees, you can approach the front of the forests with impunity and their heavy assets do essentially nothing to help them.

I don't doubt that plenty of American commanders get the rest of it wrong, trying to razzle or to rush. But it isn't hard to make numbers tell in woods fighting. You just do not mass. Instead creep LOS slowly to many of few the foremost defenders, and relieve any platoon that gets shot up or low on ammo with a second line, then a third. Standard attrition tactics - outlast on a limited frontage where maneuver it irrelevant and you can trade one for one.

[dan/california]

Check this out:

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

Coolest site ever, well except for Battlefront of course.

They should include a version of this in the game disc as a separate utility.

[~Viajero]

viajero - I am pretty sure I didn't recommend human wave anything. And you can easily send artillery to the middle of a forest - not all missions are reactive fire on point targets. You are allowed to pre plan missions, and you are allowed to use the circular barrage pattern. Also, if the Germans are so deep in the trees, you can approach the front of the forests with impunity and their heavy assets do essentially nothing to help them.

I don't doubt that plenty of American commanders get the rest of it wrong, trying to razzle or to rush. But it isn't hard to make numbers tell in woods fighting. You just do not mass. Instead creep LOS slowly to many of few the foremost defenders, and relieve any platoon that gets shot up or low on ammo with a second line, then a third. Standard attrition tactics - outlast on a limited frontage where maneuver it irrelevant and you can trade one for one.

Lost in translation I guess. I used the term "wave" just because you used it in your recommendation to suggest an attack in a wave like pattern as opposed to a concentrated fist. I understand perfectly well what you meant but took the liberty to use the word in a totally different sense for narrative purposes and to reflect what I feel the americans need to do in those forests to have a chance.

Since I set up relatively deep (enough to avoid direct HE) the Amis took hold of the outskirts of the forests indeed. IMHO this outcome is inevitable since the 2 jgdpz are not nearly enough to stop the sheer infantry numbers the American has in this scenario; and the MG´s supressing power... well, that was also discussed in another thread... Only artillery would stop an approach to the forest me thinks, and that can be countered by properly placed smoke. Also, to be effective the german arty needs to be properly timed with, or just before, the Amis push for the forests, which is not a given. The Amis have it slightly easier, first the Shermans sanitize the forest outskirts keyholed from a distance just in case the german was foolish enough to set up there, then pop smoke and get moving.

But after that any attempt to incursion deeper in the forests by those men has been countered by a defense line that concentrated fire on any incoming target, more or less one at a time, so no chance... He can not easily implement an overwatch and advance squad pair type of attack either as visibility is really limited and any attempt to overwatch supression is at best meh ... unless he either synchronizes really well a line move with a very short range overwatch (quite difficult to physically align and synchronize in game due to the 8x8 tile effect) or he decides to do a russian wave like type of attack there, since he s got the numbers. If he does the former he better synchronize well... If he does the latter in a broad line covering my flanks eventually I am pretty sure he ll get significant supression effect from those units I can not shoot at and I will be cooked in no time.

The attrition system you propose also seems like a good way to break through, and the scenario gives plenty of time for it.

Regarding artillery to hit defenders in those two big forests, meh at best aswell in this particular scenario as both "point" and "line" targets will simply wont work deep enough. As for Area fire it will probably waste a good 1/2 to 3/4 of the barrage outside the forest itself, plus the only way to make it reach deep enough in the forest and up to suspected german positions is to really make the circle big which really disperses too much the shelling to be of any effect unless the Amis struck lucky (my opponent tried and failed in this case at least, shells falling nowhere near my troops and wasted in the outskirts). Pre planned artillery would be the better choice to ensure full hit on the forests. Still those forests are big, could be hard to hit bulls eye on the german positions here plus also without having seen how the German plans to defend after a few turns it is a bit of a gamble.

The American can still obviously make it! He just should not count too much on artillery or Sherman HE to soften the forests defenders in this scenario me thinks (unless the german decides to set his infantry at the forest outskirts in easy reach of the Shermans and spotters that is).

[JonS]

Regarding artillery to hit defenders in those two big forests, meh at best aswell in this particular scenario as both "point" and "line" targets will simply wont work deep enough. As for Area fire it will waste a good 3/4 ths or more of the barrage outside the forest itself

The base assumption here seems to be that all rounds must land in the 'right' place for any of them to be effective. Artillery doesn't work that way. The US gets, IIRC, a good amount of artillery, and the FO should be able at some point to get LOS a reasonable distance into the woods. If you have to draw a big circle to get sufficient coverage of the forest ... who cares? It's the rounds that land in the forest that are interesting and should have your attention, not the ones that land in the paddock.

Of course, if the US player attempts to do that after they've started moving into the forest there's going to be tears, because the seperation between the two sides is probably going to be smaller than the artillery footprint. *shrug* That's life.

In terms of setting up a fireplan during the setup phase - great idea. Target the centre of the woods, impose a delay on it (say, 10 minutes?) to allow the footsloggers time to get into position, then push the infantry in just after the last round falls. If you 'guessed' wrong and the German didn't defend in the forest ... so what? You've still secured the forest, which is a key objective, and now have an excellent overwatch position over the rest of the battlefield. Things are looking up even if you haven't killed any Germans yet.

[~Viajero]

The base assumption here seems to be that all rounds must land in the 'right' place for any of them to be effective. Artillery doesn't work that way. The US gets, IIRC, a good amount of artillery, and the FO should be able at some point to get LOS a reasonable distance into the woods. If you have to draw a big circle to get sufficient coverage of the forest ... who cares? It's the rounds that land in the forest that are interesting and should have your attention, not the ones that land in the paddock.

No, no. Not asuming that at all. I have edited my post to clarify this point. Those woods are big, trying to set up an area fire order that reaches somewhere near suspected german posiitons will probably result in a too big area that will disperse the barrage too much to be of any effect unless you really struck lucky. As mentioned, at least in my particular case, my opponent has tried area fire this way and failed miserably so far. The german does not need to set up in a single position either wich also minimizes any potential disaster there.

Preplanned is probably the way to go, agreed, specially with a delay built in in case the german surprises the american with an outskirts defense set up so to have time to cancel the barrage

[Bastables]

Is that going to make the Glacis 25 times better than the turret front though?

Yes as the glacis is already angled from the vertical and then has the side oblique angle added to it.

[JasonC]

Viajero - sounds like you and your opponent both suffer from the common misconception that movement takes ground, and that pushing deep into LOS with lots of guys is any sort of effective tactic. That just isn't how to fight in woods - nothing specific to the terrain or to CMx2 or to one specific scenario about it.

Woods fighting is all about differential LOS.

Differential LOS means not everyone can see everyone else (obviously), and managing it is all about keeping more of your people able to see a subset of the enemy, while others on the enemy side of the field can't see anyone and are thus temporarily useless in the front line firefight.

You just want a few friendly shooters not being shot at, because your own in LOS of the foremost enemy outnumber that enemy (not in total men, in the number of separate physical locations occupied). Those unsuppressed own-side shooters keep the foremost enemies pinned. Once pinned they are rapidly eliminated outright. With no rushing -fire dominance not movement takes ground. The foremost friendlies are farthest into enemy LOS and thus move the least - if already taking fire they never, ever move forward. Their only job is to fire back. The rearward guys move enough to get LOS - using move to contact or very short, rapid movements - then go stationary and just fire.

If you lose a particular firefight you pull back, fresh men make the next attempt while the survivors of the previous just rally. The available terrain is never overloaded. That available terrain area - frontage length - not the total number of men available - sets the pace of the fight and the amount of men assigned actual frontage. A longer frontage from wrapping around the enemy is useful, but not overloading is essential.

Then everyone takes their turn at the cutting edge; the enemy faces continual fire from men as fresh as possible along the entire chosen frontage indefinitely. He can only reduce his incoming by backing away from part of the firing line. Gauging when and where that is happening becomes the primary tactical task. It isn't particularly hard; it is just a matter of listening to the morale state of the men and counting men down.

This is all perfectly standard attrition tactics stuff and would have been entirely familiar to a Roman Legion.

The error moderns ignorant of the principles of attrition tactics always make in such situations is to try to substitute mass or speed and rush the job. Instead of waiting for the heat of the firing line to melt the defenders, they try to push into and cut through them. In the process they overload the frontage and give huge and entirely avoidable boosts to the enemy from all his available area fire effects. (In infantry fighting at close quarters, this especially means grenades in real life, but includes unaimed small arms fire by lots of automatics, especially where concealment exceeds hard, bullet-stopping cover).

Properly handled infantry does not require the assistence of other arms to destroy numerically inferior enemy infantry in a woods interior. It is in fact infantry's own strongest suit, that it can inflict lopsided losses on a numerically inferior defender in such situations. At first both sides will bleed about evenly (with the correct approach outlined above), with only a slight edge to the defenders from the moment of initial contact; and even that can be offset by careful many on few small scale tactics. But once the attackers have traded evenly "through" a third to half of the defender's numbers (varying with their cover and morale etc), the rest will be so pinned, low on ammo, separated from supporting units etc, that fire dominance just snowballs, often into a total defender wipe out. Outlast their limited "wind" of good order fire on the frontage, and the rest will go down with a crash.

There is really very little cover differential available in a deep woods interior, and thus practically no defender's edge. If the attacker doesn't make the mistake of pushing too hard, too deep into LOS, or of overloading the frontage to lose more men than he needs to to area fire effects, there is no reason whatever to expect the more numerous side to lose.

[dieseltaylor]

You have to love figures quoted without reference to the parameters under which they were derived. Perhaps hate is a better word as the figures get quoted back and forth and embedded in sites and books without the necessary caveats.

Actual gun penetration figures are normally taken at right angles to the test plate and then at a couple of slopes such as 30 and 60 degrees. This is what gets quoted widely and is of interest. However the real value is thta the hosting nation is comparing guns under the same criteria, and then again can repeat the experiments with different ammunition. So you have a base to build on.

Firing in the wild is very rarely going to replicate the results of the firing range as the angles are never going to be precise, and the armour of the enemy tank may react differently, the nominal amount of the area struck may actually be reinforced by another plate ar right angles. So a very imperfect idea until a few captured samples can be tested. The lesson though is surely that gunners do not aim for an area where they are told penetration is unlikely.

So does the game engine reflect expert gunners aiming not at central mass but at what is legitimately a potential penetration area? Do green crews aim solely at the central mass and hope for the best? Range and optics would therefore have a bearing when precision is required. There is huge evidence that tank crews were advised where to shoot on enemy tanks, and even anecdotal tales from tankers, so I assume some took notice. : )

[Destraex1]

As an absolute ignorant on the details of the things are discussed here, I grasp this:

- IF you can field it (that is, if the battle isn't more than 150 km from your assembly area)

- IF you are defending (what happened with the doctrine of armored forces spearheading attacks?)

- IF you are confident that your flanks aren't exposed, even if you have to reposition

- IF the battle is short enough as to be sure to not lose a track or become bogged

- IF the terrain and infrastructure is capable to handle a 45 ton vehicle stumbling around

- IF you have an earlier version, so it doesn't have the bad armor of late days, but not so early as to have the engine problems, the bullet traps and other teething issues.

- IF you have over 2 km LOS, but no enemy air activity

- IF the enemy doesn't have, lets say, a Sherman Jumbo with 76mm gun or a Firefly

THEN, 1 on 1, the Panther is far better than the Sherman.

I got it?

now turn that around and put the shoe on the other foot;

- IF you can field it (that is, it can be transferred all the way from the USA and supply lines are not cut by the German Navy, air force or army)

- IF you are on the enemy flank

- IF you are confident that your flanks aren't exposed, even if you have to reposition

- IF the battle is short enough as to be sure to not run out of gas, or to lose a track

- IF the terrain and infrastructure is capable to handle a 30 ton vehicle constantly getting bogged

- IF you have an almost any version, the armour will still be poor.

- IF you have over poor LOS and no enemy air activity

- IF the enemy doesn't have, almost any german tank or tank hunter being fielded.

- IF you have maximum artillery cover and almost unlimited supply of shells

- IF you have maximum air cover and almost unlimited supply of aircraft

- IF you have unlimited access to spare parts, logistics and money

- IF you have no other major powers fighting against you

- IF the enemy has run out of raw materials and petrol, can hardly move due to fuel and is forced to make do with sub standard replacement materials

- IF you outnumber the enemy at least 4 to one and often much more than that

- IF the enemy has green crews and has been ground up on the eastern front first

THEN, 1 on 1, the Sherman is better than the Panther.

[dieseltaylor]

Well argie did say he was ignorant : )

Just as an aside if I were intent on fanning the argument I would look at those occasions where Shermans got handed their arses in North Africa where there was not always a huge disparity in resource - just a large disparity.

Not to say the the Allied armour did not have overall success.

[JonS]

Well, the Panther didn't do too well in North Africa.

[dieseltaylor]

JonS - well thats minus 100 grog credibility points : )

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes as the glacis is already angled from the vertical and then has the side oblique angle added to it.

Which will double the apparent armour thickness.

It seems a little odd to take the round striking the front at an angle of 30degrees, why not shoot the side which would be a much larger apparent target at that angle and only at 60degrees and generally thinner too ?

[~Viajero]

...

There is really very little cover differential available in a deep woods interior, and thus practically no defender's edge. If the attacker doesn't make the mistake of pushing too hard, too deep into LOS, or of overloading the frontage to lose more men than he needs to to area fire effects, there is no reason whatever to expect the more numerous side to lose.

Great advice, thanks. I ll put it in practice in game at the earliest opportunity. In the mean time I have sent the full quote to my opponent to see if he can pull it off

Apologies for the off topic. I am sure similar discussion topics were had in the old CMx1 forum but I think a new tactics and strategy subforum may be also good to have in CM:BN to include this kind of discussions.

[JonS]

JonS - well thats minus 100 grog credibility points : )

Why? I know the Panther didn't do too well. In Africa.

Still, comparing the performance of Shermans to Africa to the performance of Panthers in Africa seems a little ... trite?

[Magpie_Oz]

Why? I know the Panther didn't do too well. In Africa.

Still, comparing the performance of Shermans to Africa to the performance of Panthers in Africa seems a little ... trite?

Given that the Panthers weren't deployed to Africa their service record would simply be a "null" entry wouldn't it?

[dieseltaylor]

Yes maggie it was very sad to see that JonS was unaware of this fact. Very sad.

And him wondering why other posters thought he was not up on armour and giving him some references to read - you can understand why it happens.

: )

[Magpie_Oz]

- IF you can field it (that is, it can be transferred all the way from the USA and supply lines are not cut by the German Navy, air force or army)

Which is what happened

- IF you are on the enemy flank

Which is what happened

- IF you are confident that your flanks aren't exposed, even if you have to reposition

Same as any tank

- IF the battle is short enough as to be sure to not run out of gas, or to lose a track

Same as any tank

- IF the terrain and infrastructure is capable to handle a 30 ton vehicle constantly getting bogged

Only if it is wet and is more of a concern in a 45 tonne tank

- IF you have an almost any version, the armour will still be poor.

Adequate not poor

- IF you have over poor LOS and no enemy air activity

Which was the case

- IF the enemy doesn't have, almost any german tank or tank hunter being fielded.

They did field them and still lost.

- IF you have maximum artillery cover and almost unlimited supply of shells

Which they did

- IF you have maximum air cover and almost unlimited supply of aircraft

Which they did

- IF you have unlimited access to spare parts, logistics and money

Which they did

- IF you have no other major powers fighting against you

Remember Japan ? and that was a hemisphere away.

- IF the enemy has run out of raw materials and petrol, can hardly move due to fuel and is forced to make do with sub standard replacement materials

Which they did but still managed to get around quite nicely any way

- IF you outnumber the enemy at least 4 to one and often much more than that

Which they did

- IF the enemy has green crews and has been ground up on the eastern front first

Which they did

THEN, 1 on 1, the Sherman is better than the Panther.

I think that encapsulates the debate quite nicely, in the situation that actually existed the Sherman was superior. In fantasy land the Panther was better.

Like I said before it is not enough to goose step about telling everyone how Uber you think you are, eventually you have to ante up, when that came Adolph's lads were found wanting.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes maggie it was very sad to see that JonS was unaware of this fact. Very sad.

I think that was his own special brand of antipodean irony. Lost on most I think. I only know because I speak Kiwi, have to in my line of work.

[dieseltaylor]

I only know because I speak Kiwi, have to in my line of work.

Sympathy mate. : )

The reason for mentioning North Africa really was to point out that in the wrong circumstances the Sherman had trouble with mere MkIII's and MkIV's let alone Tigers. So suggesting that SHermans were "better" than Panthers would, with logic, suggest MkIII's and MkIV's were better tanks because they had won battles with Shermans.

Fairly pointless argument. The only interesting thing on th Panther I want to know is really were the French Army correct in their report Le Panther 1947 - which BF class as anecdote - saying the Sherman had much faster target acquisition. Now that would add some meat to the discussion.

[JonS]

Given that the Panthers weren't deployed to Africa their service record would simply be a "null" entry wouldn't it?

Yes, quite. Did they do well in Africa? No, they did not. They did 'not very well'.