Why it's nice to drive new vehicles...Panther G vs T34 combat testing...

[vaned74]

Surprising results...all Axis players should take heart I presume if combat was only tank vs tank.

Curious on the intricacies of the combat model I set up a series of test battles and repeated them multiple times.

Here is the setup of the scenario:
A German Panzer Unit - with 200 Panther G's and 200 Support squads, morale 99, experience 99, attached to Corps, Army, Army Group, and OKH with leaders all having 9 in every stat

A Soviet Tank "Corps" with 200 T34s and 200 Support squads, morale 99, experience 99, attached to Army, Front, and STAVKA with leaders all having 9 in every stat

I created four of each and placed in separate clear hexes within good supply range of their lower HQs.

I then had the units attack each other, restarted, and repeated, etc. Recorded the tank losses.

It is good to be in a Panther G, at least vs a T34.

Soviets attacking the Panther Units with T34 M1942s
Across 12 combats
Average german loss - 0.83 Panther G per combat defending
Average soviet loss - 119 T34 M1942s per combat attacking

Turned it around and had the Panthers attack
Across 10 combats
Average German loss - 1.1 Panther G per attack
Average Soviet loss - 64.4 T34 M1942 per defense

Admittedly, the T34 M1942 is a far inferior tank to the Panther G. So, I upgraded the T34 to the M44/85 model and repeated.

Soviet attacking - 8 combats
Average german loss - 1.5 Panther G
Average soviet loss - 109.8 T34

German attacking - 12 combats
Average german loss - 3.25 Panther G
Average soviet loss - 58.25 T34

At some point when I'm bored I'll change the T34s to IS-3s and see what happens to the Panther G's...

[Mentor]

Disappointing results.

The ratios are much closer in SP:WaW, a game with a more detailed (and for the sake of argument, I will say more accurate) combat mechanism.  I would have hoped that the results would have mirrored SP more closely.

I wonder how the Axis players who are pumping the pro-Soviet design conspiracy will twist these results to further their point.

[gingerbread]

For the Soviets the lesson is clear: Attack a different hex. There cannot be a Pz. Division in every hex.

[vaned74]

Or attack with IS-3s...

[gingerbread]

IS-3 starts producing in May 1945 - you'd better have an idea of what to do until then... [;)]

[JAMiAM]

I think the point is rather to focus on making attacks that are combined arms, and as overwhelming as possible. Since a large portion of the losses are doubtlessly due to retreat losses, it is important to "win" the battle by taking the hex.

[Aurelian]

What about T-34/85s?

[randallw]

Holy crap those results are one sided. [X(]

[Helpless]

This going to be very long thread.

[randallw]

A fairer fight might be using KV-85s; JS-1s would probably be too much.

[gingerbread]

Amen to that. The panter D has a reliability of 50, so the best way to destroy them is to gain control of the hex and eliminate the broken down ones.

Here is a related question: if a Pz. Division activates as a defensive reserve, in which hex are its broken down & damaged tank ground elements considered to be in, the combat hex or the reserve units' original hex?

[vaned74]

Actually JAMian the losses were almost all in the ground fire stage. The CVs of both sides were basically equivalent or not enough to be 2:1 so there were very few retreats. I'll go back and check but I recall most being holds - now whether they were retreat losses for the attacker in the holds is an interesting question.

Same thing was true on the attack side for Panthers attacking - only a few combats were retreats (cases where loss ration was like 1:140 in a single combat). In the Panther attack scenario, especially vs the T34/85 they were almost all holds and typically would be 2-4 panthers lost vs 50-80 T34/85s. So the Panthers were "held" but still inflicted about 25:1 loss ratios.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

For the Soviets the lesson is clear: Attack a different hex. There cannot be a Pz. Division in every hex.

No, the lesson is this: don't attack armor with armor. Attack panzers with your infantry. Force them to retreat. That's how you generate big losses on their side, and few tank losses on your own.

Panzer divisions in the open and not dug in are completely vulnerable to attacks by Soviet riflemen. Attacks made with armor always generate huge AFV losses for the Soviets. None of this is news.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

For the Soviets the lesson is clear: Attack a different hex. There cannot be a Pz. Division in every hex.

No, the lesson is this: don't attack armor with armor. Attack panzers with your infantry. Force them to retreat. That's how you generate big losses on their side, and few tank losses on your own.

Panzer divisions in the open and not dug in are completely vulnerable to attacks by Soviet riflemen. Attacks made with armor always generate huge AFV losses for the Soviets. None of this is news.

I wonder what's the Soviet infantry weapon that can defeat a Panther. I guess that if they get close enough, they will eventually manage to climb the tank and lob a grenade into some open hatch.

I guess the story is more like: 10,000 SU Rifle Squads attack 100 Panthers, 5,000 Rifle Squads die, perhaps 5 Panthers are destroyed. But since the CV of 5,000 Rifle Squads results to be twice or more than that of the surviving 95 Panthers, these are forced to retreat, perhaps yielding 10 more Panthers being destroyed (if the Panthers have high experience).

Sincerely, a 120:1 kill ratio over a 3 days period - more or less the time accounted for by the MP cost of a motorized unit deliberate attack - is something that not even a Panzer Regiment crewed by Klaus Knispel clones on hash would have dreamed of.

Interesting results vaned74. Keep them coming

[Flaviusx]

It probably does come down to CVs forcing a retreat. And really, that's all that matters. The biggest generator of casualties is the retreat. The rest doesn't matter. It's all about getting that final adjusted 2:1 result, the rest is details.

[Helpless]

Proving ground test is quite interesting, but such duel in vacuum just shows that most of the time 124 is more than 85, 172 is higher than 79, etc..

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
It probably does come down to CVs forcing a retreat. And really, that's all that matters. The biggest generator of casualties is the retreat. The rest doesn't matter. It's all about getting that final adjusted 2:1 result, the rest is details.

The Devil is in the details, Flavio. There's so much detail in this game that, on a closer inspection, results irrelevant...

Really, if the above is the case, the computation of final CV should be revised. As is common practice elsewhere armor "doubling" or infantry "halving" depending on what they're pitted against, might be a good idea.

[vaned74]

Undoubtedly retreat losses are still king. I have tested Flavius' approach of attacking with infantry squads. In fact, I ran a test of 2 corps with 1,000 total sapper squads and 200 122mm howitzers at 70mor, 70xp attacking the same 200 panther Gs (at 70 mor, 70 xp). The only panthers lost were lost in retreat. 8 combats tested result was fairly consistent -

14 Panther G destroyed - 1.75 per Soviet attack (all by retreat; there were 2 holds of the 8 combats which resulted in no Panther losses)
154 sapper squads destroyed - 19.25 lost per attack

Or a ratio far better than the T34s of 11 sapper squads lost per Panther destroyed.

[vaned74]

I agree with you on this Helpless. At the same time though, I started just out of curiousity of how the various ROF, Acc, Armor, Pen values etc interacted with one another. In this case, the only way to back out meaningful data on whether or not the individual element data model is working as expected. Of course, the problem is what is as always defining what is the expected (eg historical) result...That is almost impossible to do.

[RCHarmon]

ORIGINAL: Mentor



I wonder how the Axis players who are pumping the pro-Soviet design conspiracy will twist these results to further their point.

It amazes me how it can even be debated that this game and forum is not Soviet leaning. Just look at the hard coded moral structure. How important is moral?