Tank losses

[tyronec]

Something doesn't seem right with combat tank losses. This is from my game with Quantas, AAR on the forum looking at Tiger losses in particular.
We are now mid summer '44. I have Tigers in the GD division and 6 Heavy Panzer bns. I have used them as much as possible in offensive battles throughout the game and they have been caught in two defensive battles. So maybe around 30 battles in total of which 28 attacking and 2 defending.
I have lost 199 Tigers in total of which 118 were lost in the two defensive battles so 59 per battle. And 199-118=81 in around 28 offensive battles or about 3 per battle.
So for this game am losing 20 times as many Tigers for a defensive battle compared to an attacking one.

Tigerb.jpg (8.37 KiB) Viewed 842 times

Knowing this I have avoided leaving my Tigers where they can be attacked. The result is that although I have attacked with them as much as possible there are 302 Tigers in the pool that are not going to get used.

Tigera.jpg (11.12 KiB) Viewed 842 times

So I know this is a bit of an extreme case because the two defensive battles were pretty bad and many of the losses were from retreat attrition rather than actual shooting but I think the argument still stands, in game tanks take significant losses from being attacked by swarms of infantry even if the attackers don't have mechanised tank killers with them.

Historically in WW2 tank losses were primarily from:
Arty
Mines
AT guns
Infantry weapons
Tanks
and certainly enemy Tanks were well down the list even if we don't have much data from the Eastern front.
I would argue that while Arty and Tanks/SP guns are going to be effective while attacking; Mines, towed AT guns and Infantry are going to be less so.
It is true that early war Soviets and late war Axis lost a lot of equipment through logistics issues and also a defender who loses the battlefield is not going to be able to recover damaged tanks. However a well supplied and organised defender should be able to conduct a retreat with moderate losses much of the time.

I guess things are not going to change now but I think the offensive losses for tanks are too low, particularly Tigers which are able to attack with impunity. And the defensive losses for tanks are too high, especially when the attackers don't have much in the way of mechanised tank killers.

And in game terms, the best way for the Soviets to attrit the German panzers early war is to attack them when they get the chance even if it means infantry charging tanks in the open.

[Wiedrock]

I have used them as much as possible in offensive battles throughout the game and they have been caught in two defensive battles. So maybe around 30 battles in total of which 28 attacking and 2 defending.
I have lost 199 Tigers in total of which 118 were lost in the two defensive battles so 59 per battle. And 199-118=81 in around 28 offensive battles or about 3 per battle.
So for this game am losing 20 times as many Tigers for a defensive battle compared to an attacking one.

[...]

So I know this is a bit of an extreme case because the two defensive battles were pretty bad and many of the losses were from retreat attrition rather than actual shooting but I think the argument still stands, in game tanks take significant losses from being attacked by swarms of infantry even if the attackers don't have mechanised tank killers with them.

As you pointed out, the "problem" with the defensive battles is that if you lose you suffer RTR (Retreat losses) and among those are about 75-90%'ish of all the tanks that were damaged before/during the battle. This step is smaller during attacks, that's why you do lose way less during attacks (even when attacking, and failing). Some attacks you lose some to RTR and some attacks you lose literally 0, Not sure why, may be related to some rolls failing or so, but it's never as devastating as with an actual retreat from an Hex.
On top of this I always felt the benefit from fortifications/"mines" being too little for defenders, they supposedly are there and occasionally there is a report about a tank "breaking down" but that's at max 1-3 times a battle (if even that), ...but who knows.

And in game terms, the best way for the Soviets to attrit the German panzers early war is to attack them when they get the chance even if it means infantry charging tanks in the open.

Sounds historic to me.

[garga3]

Suggestion: check the detailed report and see what hit your tigers (under the AP hits column).

Soviet infantry is harmless. (Actually the starting rifle oob has 0 antitank weapons for tanks, except for a random grenade which is extemely rare). I think you are wrong to blame the AP mechanics here - but just check the advanced report and you will see (also please provide it as data when you complain about it).

Your losses come from proper AT fire and retreat. And its not retreat attrition as you think. Its more related to damaged elements/fatigue/fuel. I have experimented a little and found that if you attack panzers (repeating same attack several times on same target) they will lose exactly(for example exatcly 7 pz3j) the same (high) number of tanks + small random retreat attrition each time; which means that some elements are in something like static mode (insufficient fuel, high fatigue, damaged elements, low support or vehiles - i dont know the reason, but they consitently fail to retreat and are exactly the same afvs). In any case its not retreat attrition (panzers are almost immune to normal retreat attrition, because of their high xp and this is in the manual), its some mechanic that is not properly documented.

Note: Sometimes they dont suffer this, sometimes only the normal retreat attrition (but its very hard to diff the 2 with only 1 attack as people normally do). But sometimes they lose 20 or 50 tanks for this(exactly the same type and number). Meanining that at some unknown conditions you are guaranteed to lose some afvs if you retreat. I suspect its due to insufficient fuel at the end of the battle and no supplies in a nearby depot(as defenders are allowed to resupply during battle) but its just a very wild guess.

Its also part of the reason why soviets suffer so high "retreat attrition" - it simply is not just normal retreat attrition, but also this.

Edit:
Isnt this the battle you talk about:
T142
Post by tyronec » Sun Sep 08, 2024 8:21 am

The panzers get hard south of Pskov, in two battles and they lose 188 Tigers – that is roughly double my losses for the whole of the past year. NEVER NEVER NEVER leave Panzers and especially Tigers where they can be hit hard in a defensive battle. The Soviets don’t follow up, guess they are quite worn out too.
New offensive opened south of Moscow, we pull back to the second defensive line.
A few more attacks in the South, nothing too dramatic.
T142a.jpg

188 is actually 118, but 10pz which got all the heavy elements(tigers are in them no?) got routed, and i am pretty sure that on rout support elements attached to that unit do have a bad day. Not to mention the 10:1 odds (you really got spanked). They also had flamethrowers which might be effective vs tigers. If you want to avoid it simply assign the tigers to combat units that are not in risk of routing. This 10th panzer must have been in a bad shape and with low morale. And with low morale the retreat attrition matters (you can ask the soviets, and the rout multiplies it). Even if the tigers are part of the 10th itself they would suffer normal retreat attrition in this case.

[Cavalry Corp]

What unit are the King Tigers in? I bet it's one of the company-sized units. From what I see, you will never get them in the standard heavy Battalions. They do not upgrade except in the oddest and most random circumstances. I have none in my game by the end of December 44 except the company-sized units. I am wondering if yours is a company-sized unit.

In my previous game, I had one battalion upgrade by DEC 44 - the rest were left rusting somewhere for use in 1950 ha ha.

Cav

[tyronec]

What unit are the King Tigers in? I bet it's one of the company-sized units. From what I see, you will never get them in the standard heavy Battalions. They do not upgrade except in the oddest and most random circumstances. I have none in my game by the end of December 44 except the company-sized units. I am wondering if yours is a company-sized unit.

The King Tigers are in a company in WE.

A sample battle with 270 Tigers, none of them the 70 AFV losses. I don't have a record of the defending battles, they were some time ago. As has been said it would take some testing to try and work out under what circumstances there are really heavy tank losses but it doesn't look like it happens during the 'combat' phase.

T160b.jpg (95.5 KiB) Viewed 794 times

[chaos45]

Tyronec---your not the first person to post on the fact that tiger tanks appear to take almost no losses.

Someone else posted awhile back about having a ton in the pool since they never get destroyed.

My guess is its weak under hood combat system---first the tiger unit has to be picked up as a target, then hit by a system that can actually damage it.

Being that they are high exp units they are less likely to be picked as a target is my understanding and thus since they are unlikely to even be targeted the few times they are is probably by a weapon system that cant hurt them.

My and HYLAs recent game a perfect example of this just happened he had a Romanian and 2 German divisions stacked on the move in the south---I did like 2k attack sorties against the stack with no axis air intercept---almost all the losses were applied to the Romanians because they Germans were apparently to super men to get hit by droves of unopposed soviet strike planes lol

[M60A3TTS]

As near as I can tell from the attached pic, the Soviets don't have much in the way of ground elements that could defeat a Tiger I's 100 value front armor. Even the Soviet AT regiments at this stage are still equipped with the 76.2mm ATGs and their pen value is 94. So the same would apply for the T-34s models 1942 and 1943 with their 76mm cannons as well. Here of course the Soviets have no AFVs at all.

If we are just talking about killing Tiger I's, then heavy and medium SU regiments would have better chances along with the IS series heavy tanks and T-34/85s.

[chaos45]

Soviets have 2x AT regiments just depends on if they are the ones armed with 85mm dual purpose guns or not.

Also soviet artillery should be able to damage them, but ya alot of it is the experience thing....high experience troops are supermen in WITE....its why the SS divisions are the lead efforts for everything until GD division comes online they are like 90%+ so effectively invincible in the system unless extremely abused.

[M60A3TTS]

Soviets have 2x AT regiments just depends on if they are the ones armed with 85mm dual purpose guns or not.

I believe the ones you are referring to are the '41 versions that by 7/44 are un-buildable and probably long since upgraded to the 76mm equipped 43 version.

[tyronec]

I have not tried to analyse how combat is happening and there are other players who know more about this than I do, so please correct me if this is wrong.
Losses in battle are have two causes, the combat losses (from elements on both sides shooting at each other) and the 'result' losses (coming from comparing the final CV of both sides) which can be heavy if a unit is forced to retreat.

There look to be two issues here.
The combat losses for Tigers are too low. The game is working on the basis that the AT guns cannot penetrate their armor and so there are almost zero kills. However this ignores the fact that in of these offensive battles in my game Axis are attacking; and infantry, unless they are caught in the open, are going to do some damage. As are even the light and medium AT guns as are mines as are heavy arty.

The second issue is that the retreat losses can be too high. I would need to set up a test bed to try this out, but in the two battles where I lost 118 Tigers the units in question had been well rested before the battle and were well supplied and fueled up, it was a counter attack near Pskov and supplies were plentiful - not a long term offensive where logistics get stretched. Maybe there is mechanic where you need to keep Panzers within 3 hexes of a supplied depot if you are going to use them for defending - am not sure and have not considered that in my play.

The overall effect of this is that there are two things that are skewed in the game and it makes for an odd play style.
Tanks are worse than they should be in defence.
Tigers are almost invulnerable on the attack (this is not such a big deal as the elements around them still get trashed, it just means they build up in the pool).

[Wiedrock]

As near as I can tell from the attached pic, the Soviets don't have much in the way of ground elements that could defeat a Tiger I's 100 value front armor. Even the Soviet AT regiments at this stage are still equipped with the 76.2mm ATGs and their pen value is 94. So the same would apply for the T-34s models 1942 and 1943 with their 76mm cannons as well. Here of course the Soviets have no AFVs at all.

I may want to add that Panthers have more effective frontal armor than Tiger I's (110 vs ~124). Since developers took the effective armor as value due to the armor-angle (like also done for the T34).
For the sides it is different, where Tigers have more (75 vs ~45).
So if the Panthers are no isse, it's the sides...maybe?!

If we are just talking about killing Tiger I's, then heavy and medium SU regiments would have better chances along with the IS series heavy tanks and T-34/85s.

+1

Everything with a 100, 122 or 152 in it's name should be fine, or the 85mm Gun Tanks.
Maybe you're lucky and have some old 107mm M-60 around (they are rather rare) or the new 100mm BS-3 AT Gun (20per month from 5/44 being produced).

Generally for a strategic game this is exactly what you want to have, to have some kind of rock-paper-scissor'ish system. What's imo little messing with this, is the teleportation of such SUs and the randomness of them being committed to battles (when inside HQs), and also that Soviets did lots of their pushing with numbers (not saying they didn't properly execute their plans in 43+ but it remained to depend on larger numbers).

The combat losses for Tigers are too low. The game is working on the basis that the AT guns cannot penetrate their armor and so there are almost zero kills. However this ignores the fact that in of these offensive battles in my game Axis are attacking; and infantry, unless they are caught in the open, are going to do some damage. As are even the light and medium AT guns as are mines as are heavy arty.

[...]

Tigers are almost invulnerable on the attack (this is not such a big deal as the elements around them still get trashed, it just means they build up in the pool).

One may want to add that the system is downgrading the Soviets, since they've used their masses of Artillery often in a direct fire role, but many/most/all or the artillery do not have penetration values and only fire indirectly, this may give the heavier armored German tanks some less enemies on the battlefield that could penetrate them directly but most likely would completely shred them to bits if it'd be otherwise by the devs.

[CanisVasily]

Indeed I support the view that the retreat loss may be too high (compared to reality). Actually the majority of the loss comes from retreat. If the retreat path is blocked by EZOC then the loss will be even greater, especially for AFVs (it's also related to reliability and morale).

My experience for the Germans is to avoid submitting AFV SUs like Stug or Heavy Panzer Battalions to frontier units that may be attacked in Soviet turn. Use them to attack or counter-attack as you may control the loss.

[chaos45]

I mean overall guys this is nothing new----

The majority of losses occur from the retreat result in battles.

My understanding is that this is because prior damaged elements are destroyed as they are considered left behind in the retreat.

This is why the Germans need zero pockets in 1941 to basically win---as they just hit a soviet unit...cause 1-2k losses but a ton of damaged elements then hit it against and basically wiped out the unit.....you dont need pockets just double tap units and u do massive losses.

The combat system in WITE 2 has worked that way basically the entire time to my knowledge as its a well know strategy at this point.

[HansBolter]

Sounds like a few here should replay The Paw of the Tiger scenario from Squad Leader.

Tigers in defense ruled the battlefield.

[DocHawkeye]

Indeed I support the view that the retreat loss may be too high (compared to reality). Actually the majority of the loss comes from retreat. If the retreat path is blocked by EZOC then the loss will be even greater, especially for AFVs (it's also related to reliability and morale).

My experience for the Germans is to avoid submitting AFV SUs like Stug or Heavy Panzer Battalions to frontier units that may be attacked in Soviet turn. Use them to attack or counter-attack as you may control the loss.

I think this is true as well, those Sturmgeshutz batteries especially I feel the need to guard carefully because they’re such lifesavers in the event of a breakthrough and I don’t want them expended or worn away on the frontline. Artillery SUs too are just too easily lost fighting defensively. Anti-tank and AA batteries I feel okish losing because it’s sort of their job to just absorb losses and prevent retreats from turning into routs. Like an expended Panzerjager battery that prevented a rout can be considered to have “done its job” to me. The StuG and Tiger are too valuable for that, I need them to close breakthroughs more than prevent them.