SUPPORTING the v6.1 versus v7.0

[mogami]

Greetings. In the first week of the War between Germany and the Soviet Union the bulk of the T-34 were located in the Kiev Mi;litary district. They launched a counter attack against AGS PZ group and succeeded in stopping it and forcing it to retreat. This was one of the reasons for Hitler stopping the drive on Moscow to encircle the Soviets down south. The very first Soviet success against German armour was in the first week. I will check and see what type of Tanks the T-34's were up against.
The counter-attack of the Soviet's begain on June 26 and transformed into a counter-offensive against the 48th German Motorised Corps, the 11th and 16th Panzer Divisions were pushed back. However, the Soviet's couldn't finish the operation with encirclement because of the situation on their flanks.
The point of course is that the Germans did not enjoy overwhelming success every where from the start.

OK here is the lucky German Panzer division that first encountered T-34's in the offensive role. The 16th Panzer Division.
On 20 October 1940 the 2nd Panzer Regiment was reassigned to the newly forming 16th Panzer Division. On 6 November 1940 the 113th Schutzen Regiment was formed from the 3/1st Schutzen Regiment and assigned to the division. On 15 February 1941 the 2/69th Schutzen Regiment was used to form the 2/113th Schutzen Regiment. The 73rd Artillery Regiment formed a 3rd Battalion from the 2/56th Artillery Regiment. On 21 June 1941, the eve of the invasion of Russia, the division's panzer forces and their inventories were as follows:

1/, 2/1st Panzer Regiment
1 Regimental Staff Signals Platoon
1 Regimental Staff Light Panzer Platoon
Each battalion had
1 Panzer Staff Company
1 Medium Panzer Company
2 Light Panzer Companies
PzMk II -- 43
PzMk III (59) -- 71
PzMk IV -- 20
PzBefWg -- 11

So the T-34 was up against PZ-III's

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>

[Alexandra]

Originally posted by Mike Rothery:
It would appear that the basis for the criticism is that folks have a feeling for the T34 being a real shock to the Germans and that the adjustments to the V7 OOb make it a mere mortal.

In 1941 when the Germans first encountered the T34 and KV series tanks the 50mm armed Pz III's were a rare item. The bulk of german armour and AT gun units were armed with the 37mm. The upgunning of the PzIV F with the 75L43, the long barrelled 50mm for the PzIII and Marders with the PAK 40 were all responses to the difficulties in taking out the heavier allied armour. Whole Panzer diisions were still armed with the Czech 35T and 38T with 37mm gun, with the Panzerjager units only having the PzJgr I with the Czech 47mm gun. The T34 must have been a real problem to deal with at that time.

The T34 was well respected because it was such a good all round package, and highly suitable to the Russian winter. It was quick and with its wide tracks was a good performer in mud and snow. The sloping armour gave it good protection for the weight, which allowed it to have a good power-to-weight ratio. It had an OK gun, and an air-cooled diesel that was more resiliant to the temperature extremes.

The reason that the T34 is often praised as the best tank of the war is because is could be produced cheaply and quickly.....and it is that strategic consideration that made it a success. I have thought for many years now that Soviet equipment was over-rated on a comparitive basis.

---

I agre with Mike, here. I think we, as gamers, often get a skewed idea of what was powerful and not based on how we game, which tends to be nothing but the 'best' units facing off against one another, which was not the most common of irl occurances.

The T-34 was feared, not because it was overly scary to the best SS and elite Panzer units with the most modern tanks - though period writings do show it suprised them - but because it was lethal to the lesser units, i.e. 37mm Panzers - as Mike said - and, to a much greater extent, Infantry Units. The 50mm they used - when lucky - was pretty useless against the T34, and the 37 wasn't even tried against it.

Yet, for all it's feearsomeness, the T-34 was not invincible. As one example, on Dec 11, 1942, the Soviet 5th Tank Corps was commited, against Army Group Center, as part of Operation Mars. At dawn, that day, it had 131 tanks, mostly T-34. At dusk on the 12th, it had 23.

108 dead tanks, 36 hours.

Now, I have to admit I find the entire armor debate silly. Deciding that a version is 'good' or 'bad' based on some number on a chart strikes me as being wound a tad tightly.

Instead, why not do what irl tank commanders had to do. They couldn't say "Dear Uncle Joe, please give the T-34m40 an extra 2 mm armor over here." or "Hey, OKH, how about 8 more mm here." They had to use tactics to defeat the challenge.

Can't kill something from the front - shell the heck out of it, and kill it with infantry. Move, and hit it from the rear, or, swarm it with numbers - which, at least, the Russians should always have.

Alex

[Paul Vebber]

FIgmo - the 53@ 12 of the PZ 12 is a "kludge" becasue of the shot traps in its round front and interior matlet. 30/rouond can give an effective armor thickness of between 30 and 70mm. Using the higher "thickness" with te low angle makes it more vulnerable against small caliber weapons than the 30@42 that would correspond to the "regular" rating.

Remeber the "6-slab" model makes you have to do some cartwheels sometimes with odd shaped things...

[Fredde]

Moving tanks demand a lot more from the crew, and even more if the moving tank is shooting as well. This is difficult, and with WWII equipment very much so.

Lets put the complete overall picture up here instead of focusing on hard values only (that is difficult for a wargamer, ain't it <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ). I truly believe that v. 7.0 is a better representation of reality than earlier versions. The German training, tactics and initiative more than well made up for bigger and nastier Russian tanks, which can, historically, be clearly seen when looking at statistics for kill ratios.

To get a "balanced fair game".. it is fairly simple. If you do think that Russian tanks are too bad or too cheap in two-player games to get an interesting game, give the Russian player more points. For your own playing, if you don't like the values.. like Redleg stated, there is always the OOB editor.

I've had the great pleasure of using 7.0 for quite a while now due to involvement in MC creation. I really enjoy playing with it for sure, and I think Matrix did a great job with it.

Originally posted by gorgias96:
For Imp:


Plz try that same test with the tanks moving and IA activated. I don´t criticise only the new armor/piercing values. Perhaps they are correct but the result is a poor performance with the T34. The anterior values maybe weren´t absolutely correct but the T34 was a more balanced unit. If u say OK OK then we must keep the presents A/P values and increase another T34´s caracteristics to get a more historically accurate tank. Than i´ll be agreed with u.
I don´t want a T34 "russian tiger" only look for a tank wich support the historics dates. I.e. a T34 that be a very hard opponent to earlies german tanks. It´s very amazing to see like Pz III destroy KV-1!!! from medium and long distance Do u want to tell me that this is historically accurate??????

I mean the same with every new "amazing" unit like Shermans "tiger´s hunter" etc.... etc...

---

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Fredde ]</p>

[Scorpion_sk]

Instead, why not do what irl tank commanders had to do. They couldn't say "Dear Uncle Joe, please give the T-34m40 an extra 2 mm armor over here." or "Hey, OKH, how about 8 more mm here." They had to use tactics to defeat the challenge.

Can't kill something from the front - shell the heck out of it, and kill it with infantry. Move, and hit it from the rear, or, swarm it with numbers - which, at least, the Russians should always have.

---

Heh, the prob is....we´re so concerned about enjoying MCLV....can´t tell the A-Idiot to "use tactics" unfort...
That´s why it´d be imperative that the AI has all the advantages it SHOULD have.

[mogami]

Greetings. I really don't mind if the PZ-III kills T-34's. But the T-34 was not to be found every where on the front. Mostly in the Kiev Military District where it raised havoc on the 11th and 16th Panzer Divisions. The bulk of the available T-34s were lost to break downs during the move to their jump off points. The 16th Pz Tank Regt had outran it's infantry and ran smack dab into a large herd of T-34's. 2 days later it was still retreating. A player of the Russian side in June 1941 should not take T-34's unless he is claining to be in this area. I am testing June 1941 T-34 against German tanks. Soviet player2. At beginning turn 4 of 8k each all T-34 versus PZIII(eghj) PZIV edf

21 T-34 destroyed
10 Immobilized
3 abandoned
38 retreating

2 PZIIIe destroyed 1 immobile
5 PZIIIg destroyed
2 PZIIIh destroyed 2 immobile

Now having a game that allowed Soviets to beat June 1941 Germans up and down the front would definatly have problems. But the Germans who ran into T-34's in June 41 had their butts handed to them. This kind of loss ratio would not have required any change to German Armour production (other then to just increase production of current models) And the Soviets would have been crazy to keep producing T-34's when BT-7's are so much cheaper (and just as effective from a SPWAW point of view). It not even the hot rounds at under 10 hexes PZ-III's are destroying T-34's at over 20 hexes

In long campagins as German I used to be afraid of T-34's now I just have to make sure I am in 50mm PZ-III.
Soviets historical problems vis vis SPWAW untrained so low to hit chance and poor rate of fire, low morale so they run away/disperse fast. No matter what equipment used in 1941 this makes defeat hard to avoid (as it should be) No problem.
Are we now saying the T-34 also is a myth? and PZ-III cverrun it same as BT-5?
In long campaign as Soviet you try to counter this by gaining some exp against Finland or Japan and then being in tank with suriviality (your troops still run away but they gain a little exp)
Then with the few T-34 you have in core force they can help hold a few defence to allow infantry to train, not any more.
In testing today over 100 T-34's have been destroyed by PZ-III (even the e model has a few kills) while T-34's have killed around a dozen PZ-III (I might just have bad luck since 30 Sturmovik attacks have only netted a halftrack and some infantry)
In my nutty feverish brain I always gave T-34 credit for winning the war. To wit on June 26th it make counter attack that pushed 2 panzer divisions back. AGS had smallest armour commitment and was unable to handle situation alone. Rather then leave all these T-34's on flank and rear of AGC the Germans stopped the drive on Moscow while they concentrated on the Kiev pocket. After 1941 German field day against BT-5/7 T-26 et al crap; T-34 becomes main foe and Germany starts producing the 'beasts' not because of KV's but because they do not want to lose any tanks. Other countries build heavy tanks to counter German heavy. Germany builds the new tanks to fight T-34 with superiour tank. (Loss ratio of PZ-III and IV too high for Germans to win war so they must have weapon with clear superiour ratio)

Anyway the ratio I am seeing would be acceptable for BT's and T-26 etc but it makes T-34 look like a mistake.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>

[Mikimoto]

German successes against the T-34 and Russian Heavies were based in crew training and quality, tactics and good use of the mediocre material they had, AS WE ALL KNOW.
If you want to play "results", play OPERATIONAL GAMES, when each playing piece representing a company/batallion, and all the possible events during combat are inserted in the turn, tank combat, infantry and AT-support, CAS, etc..
But if you want to play the "making-off" of the "historical result", then you must play TACTICAL games, as my loved Spwaw is. But I don't like the new making-of I see in v7.

[Mikimoto]

"Even under such constraints, though, one of the radio-telephone conversations between Hitler and Gen. Heinz Guderian in late December is instructive in showing how a good army can make one kind of supply serve another purpose. Guderian was complaining to Hitler about having trouble stopping the Soviet's T-34-led breakthrougs. The Führer asked why he didnpt use the 88mm Flak guns to destroy them as in previous encounters. The general explained the ground was now frozen so hard he needed to save his artillery rounds to blast holes for their infantry to sleep in at night. Experience has already shown if he didn't get his Landser below ground level they'd freeze to death."

By Ty Bomba.
Command issue 27

[Mikimoto]

"With 24,000 Soviet tanks versus about 3,000 German, the Red Army have repelled the invasion, but the new mechanized units proved entirely unable to stop, or even seriously impede, the onslaught. That was true even though, for the most part, the defender's tanks were as good as or better than those of the Germans. Though the excellent T-34 AND KV-I weren't present in significant numbers until the end of the year, the older models, such as the BT-7 and T-26, were more than a match for the German Mark I and II, and were the equal of the Mark III that made up the bulk of the panzer division's inventory.
The inept manner in wich the Soviet mechanized forces were led and operated -- at the start of the fighting the average in-unit driving experience of the crews before going into battle was two hours -- resulted in easy triumphs for the Germans who in many cases simply encircled and annihilated those units. That was the case with the 6th, 16th and 23rd Mechanized Corps, which were wiped out during their first engagement, while the 9th, 22nd and 19th had their tank strength reduced 95 percent by the third day.
By the end of August, the mechanized corps had for all practical purposes ceased to exist. The tank replacements becoming available were all sent to the rifle divisions, wich in many cases began to spontaneously organize their own tank battalions. Thus the role of the tank in the Red Army was once again shifted back to infantry support out of the sheer necessity of shoring up the rifle units. This reversion was also a reflection of the fact that at the time the battalion was probably the organizational limit of mobile unit Soviet commanders were capable of handling with any degree of competence.
The mechanized corps were officially disbanded in September, and the Soviet high command began forming independent tank brigades and battalions that continued to be used almost exclusively in the infantry close-support role. These new units were small, with only 48 tanks ans 1,000 men each.
Even during the Moscow counteroffensive beginning in December, there was no attempt to use the independent tank brigades to exploit breaches torn in the German line by the rifle divisions. This resulted in a slow, methodic offensive that entirely lacked the echelons and speed called for in Deep Battle.
Still, emboldened by the limited success the methodic approach had gained during the winter, the Red Army prepared to attack again that spring. By this point the high command (Stavka) realized if they were to wage an offensive truly strategic in scope some portion of the tanks would have to be reclaimed from the infantry support role and put back into independent mobile formations. As a result, the tank corps, and even a tank army, made their appearances on the Red Army's order of battle during April and May 1942.
The organization of the new tank corps was based on brigades rather than the divisions of the 1940 mechanized corps. As a result, these new units were rough equivalents of the German panzer divisions. The new tank army's organization varied from two to three tank corps, with several rifle divisions added for support."

By Peter J.Vlakancic
Command issue 34

[mogami]

Greetings, I heard tanks exploding in my sleep. I have to stop pulling these all nighters. Looking at the OB's I think we will be seeing the Soviets using the lend lease and captured tank formations more then we used to. Conscript and rifle infantry are not a good choice in 41 (no molotovs)
So it looks like SMG Companies will be good to use. The paras also have molotovs. I am going to experiment with a mix of Conscript/Rifle companies up front taking the heat while SMG's try to get close to the objective areas. On defend type battles it should not be too impossible to hold. On advance/Assault and meeting engagements it will be tricky. Don't forget mortars to fire smoke.
Russians in 41 or 42 have never been easy (nor should they be) In long Campaigns it will be a bit harder to train up but you should get to where you always have a large store of points for replacments.

I'll miss sending my elite tank commanders to Tankhead. (none of them ever survived the war (darn Tigers) but I will always remember Sgt Petteroff (T-34 commander with 100+ kills) holding off swarms of Mk-III's while my infantry ran for the hills.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>

[Fredde]

Mikimoto. I very much prefer a good tactical game, with a good historical outcome. Why should not the results judge this type of game as they do on the operational level games?

The Germans were simply much better off with their tanks than the T-34. If changing the OOB is a good way of making the results more realistic, i'm all for it (not that I have any doubts whatsoever in Paul Vebbers and others knowledge).

Crew training, crew quality, better tactics etc. As you stated this gave the Germans a historically proved advantage in the early years. This included very good performance even against "heavier" Russian tanks. With this mind, I really have no problem with German tanks outperforming Soviet ones.

Tactics and skill also include "microtactics" modeled in the turn and beyond the players control. Where in the 50 meter hex is the tank located.. how does the commader use it.. when does he shoot.. what occasion etc etc. Perhaps the "effective" penetration value of a gun is much higher than the "theoretical" when used by skilled troops than by non-skilled since they hit better and know where to fire the shot to really hurt the enemy tank.

I do not think SPWAW takes it upon itself to be the perfect ballistic simulation. There are much better programs out there for that (usually well-hidden in army training centres or vehicle constructor companies). Rather I see SPWAW as an excellent historical wargame on the tactical level, able to recreate historical results.

And.. the program is so great that it even allows you to modify all these debated values and go with your own version (for those who feel they have done a much more extensive and correct research than the OOB creators, and even for those who just want to test it out <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ).

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
German successes against the T-34 and Russian Heavies were based in crew training and quality, tactics and good use of the mediocre material they had, AS WE ALL KNOW.
If you want to play "results", play OPERATIONAL GAMES, when each playing piece representing a company/batallion, and all the possible events during combat are inserted in the turn, tank combat, infantry and AT-support, CAS, etc..
But if you want to play the "making-off" of the "historical result", then you must play TACTICAL games, as my loved Spwaw is. But I don't like the new making-of I see in v7.

---

[asgrrr]

May I ask everyone to keep this thread as close to topic as possible? There are plenty of threads out there to discuss various aspects of tanks, plates and guns. This is a place for those who choose v6.1 over v7 to make a statement in my opinion.

Thank you, and I empasize I am not aiming to stifle discussion by this.

[Figmo]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
FIgmo - the 53@ 12 of the PZ 12 is a "kludge" becasue of the shot traps in its round front and interior matlet. 30/rouond can give an effective armor thickness of between 30 and 70mm. Using the higher "thickness" with te low angle makes it more vulnerable against small caliber weapons than the 30@42 that would correspond to the "regular" rating.

Remeber the "6-slab" model makes you have to do some cartwheels sometimes with odd shaped things...

---

Paul - please try again and explain the numbers - I have a feeling you are saying 53@ 12 is 53mm at 12 degrees and 30@42 is 30mm at 42 Degrees but am not sure so I can't comment on blind numbers - also, where are these angles on the Tank to help more than other countries - aka the Russian tanks have angles too - are they taken into account if not why not.

[Paul Vebber]

YEs the numbers are mm at degrees.

The game allows only one "plate" to represent often several on the facing of the real tank. In some cases a "dominant plate" is used when it has most of the exposuer (the Panther upper Glacis for example) but other times many plates must be "averaged" becasue of differeing rientation and curved surfaces. That is why many of the numbers do not match "book value".

I recommend teh WWII ballistics book for explanation of the details.

[Figmo]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
YEs the numbers are mm at degrees.

The game allows only one "plate" to represent often several on the facing of the real tank. In some cases a "dominant plate" is used when it has most of the exposuer (the Panther upper Glacis for example) but other times many plates must be "averaged" becasue of differeing rientation and curved surfaces. That is why many of the numbers do not match "book value".

I recommend teh WWII ballistics book for explanation of the details.

---

Then you are telling me I am correct - the raw numbers don't mean so much - it's a feel you have go for. That is my whole point. If numbers meant everything men wouldn't leave a bunker - but they do. If numbers meant everything then Audy Murphy couldn't have stopped 5 tanks and a company of infantry by himself. Not that this happens all the time just once and a while. Like a 50mm ATG taking out a KV - it does happen - but seldom. That is how Ver. 6.1 was working - with Ver. 7 things like this happen too often.

[sven]

Wow I remember a lot of resistance to Version 6 too....

coincidence??? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Matt]

Folks,

I have not been on this board for a while, but I have played the SP series for quite a while. I have been reading this series, and have seen quite number of tests for the new armor and penetration values that point either way on this issue. So these inspired me and I thought, I shall throw in with my own results, and I wanted to address this issue most directly, and in the realm of playability.

Having never played the Heroes of the Motherland campaign, I tried that. (Normally, I can't tolerate being the Soviets for more than one turn.)

Frankly, I didn't have any problem at all with the campaign. I had two platoons of tanks, one of T-34s and one of T-60s, plus two companies of Rifles and some recon and mortars. (I personally like recon and mortars, a lot.) Maybe other people think that this is an easy campaign, but I was continually astonished at how many German armored vehicles kept appearing. I wanted to jump up and call "Foul!", but I kept playing.

To shorten a long story, it went ugly early for the Germans in each scenario. (and I play will all the preferences on excepting C&C, which I hate when using trucks). After the first few nail biter turns, each time the Germans were safely sorted out by the tanks I had. I did upgrade the T-60s to T-34s, but still didn't notice any real problems, especially comparing them to other, earlier versions of SPWAW.

Thoughts?

Matt

[Galka]

Originally posted by Mike Rothery:
It would appear that the basis for the criticism is that folks have a feeling for the T34 being a real shock to the Germans and that the adjustments to the V7 OOb make it a mere mortal.

In 1941 when the Germans first encountered the T34 and KV series tanks the 50mm armed Pz III's were a rare item. The bulk of german armour and AT gun units were armed with the 37mm....

---

This would be a great explaination if it were indeed true. Regretfully according to Jentz' Panzertruppen 1 and this mortal's addition, German panzer units set off to war against Russia with 1021 MK III tanks equipped with the 5 cm gun. Of these 546 were reported to be equipped with the 5 cm lang (long) barrel. 75; 55 to the 6th Panzer and 20 to the 20th Panzer were equipped with the 37mm gun.

I cannot dispute the AT, however an interesting note according to Nafziger at the start of Barbarossa, many Infantry PanzerJaeger units had 10 37mm and 2 50mm Pak.

[Mikimoto]

Hello.

A friend sended this to me:

Some light on the problem of German 5cm guns vs T34 and KV-1 can be shed by data in Jentz:"Panzertruppen vol. 1" p. 231 where combat reports from May 1942 show the following:

5cm L/42 vs T34:
PzGr 40 (APCR) penetrates turret side up to 100 meters. Penetrates lower hull (the vertical armour between the roadwheels) up to 200 meters.

PzGr (AP) penetrates lower hull up to 150meters after several hits

5cm L/42 vs KV-1
Penetration impossible

5cm L/60 against T34
PzGr40 not used as the round jams the gun.
PzGr penetrates up to 400 meters at turret and hull sides, up to 300 meters with several hits on the drivers hatch in the front hull

5cm L/60 against KV-1
PzGr40 up to 200 meters on the hull side and rear
PzGr no penetrations

[Charles2222]

Galka:

This would be a great explaination if it were indeed true. Regretfully according to Jentz' Panzertruppen 1 and this mortal's addition, German panzer units set off to war against Russia with 1021 MK III tanks equipped with the 5 cm gun. Of these 546 were reported to be equipped with the 5 cm lang (long) barrel. 75; 55 to the 6th Panzer and 20 to the 20th Panzer were equipped with the 37mm gun.

I cannot dispute the AT, however an interesting note according to Nafziger at the start of Barbarossa, many Infantry PanzerJaeger units had 10 37mm and 2 50mm Pak.

---

Hmmmm, looks like other people have diffeent big pictures, as I said. I've always heard that rubbish that PZIIIs weren't there in force, but consider something else. One of the big pictures I've heard over the years, adn I'm sure it's reasonably accurate, is that the Wehrmacht had at the start of Barbarossa 3,000 tanks. If 1,000+ PZIII 50mm tanks were there, that is clearly 33% of the force. True, there MAY had been more light tanks than PZIII 50mms, but 1/3 of the ofrce is by no means a rare amount. Compare USSR KVIs and T34/76s to their grand total at that time, and see something that was a lot closer to 'rare' (though I believe they numerically outnumbered 1000, but percent of tank force is the topic). To think that a little better than 17% of the tank force for Gerry was also the 50mm 'longs'.