Matrix Games Forums

Charles you missed my point... I am not advocating the changing of anything ...My Point was for all the talk about the german armor "should be better" "really was better" " i picked GermanTanks so i cam always win" "somethings wrong my German tanks don't always win" Nobody who thinks the German armor is better is saying they thing it should be priced higher ...they just want the advatages hollywood says german tanks have but they don't want to pay more .. they just think having Invincible Armor is a birthright of German Players or something ...
My Point is American Armor REALLY is that good it can kill German tanks inculding tigers and Panthers and King Tigers on a regular basis get used to it quit blaming the game and learn some tactics the tanks are priced as near as to fair as they can and American tanks have some serious advatages so get over thats why Patton kicked Rommels ass in two different Theaters of WW2

Read into this what you like, it just took 16 shoots with 0 surpression to kill a Sherman. 3 hits with the third the killer. All shots were above 25% with most, after the first shot, 33% and above. P*ss poor by any standards for a Tiger. Oh yeah they were not moving also.

It's like the game calculates how many possible units could get a shoot and makes you move every one of them to get a kill. I cheer if I get a kill and haven't used all my shoots or other units. Is it possable that there is a built in cheat that was put in for the game to be more playable against the AI?

Please don't take this as a sour grapes kind of post. Just adding to the thread.


------------------
PR
http://electricwar.tripod.com/

[This message has been edited by Pack Rat (edited February 14, 2001).]

Okay on the subject of German tank abilities against various allies. I agree that the german tanks for some reason are worse against americans. In all the games Ive played Ive always had the hardest time hitting and killing american shermans. Canadian shermans are easy to kill compared to american shermans so whats up with that. Also in most of the games Ive played ive found the Mark 4s to be a complete waste of points. Their armour is way to weak to stand up to anything, and their main gun which was historically very effective against pretty much all allied tanks is damn near useless. In most of the gmaes Ive played the german 75mm AT weapons have been fairly useless unless Im under 10 hexes I really see a problem with that esp when compared to how effective lower velocity allied 75mm weapons are. Well those are just some of the observations Ive made on the game.

Ammo Sarge's has made some good points, but she's made one tiny error. Patton never fought Rommel.

When Patton was in North Africa, Rommel had already left.

And before Patton's Army Group became operatrional in Normandy, British fighters had shot up Rommel's car, removing him from the war.

as my mama always said .... you do to know exactly what i meant ..

but a good point none the less
i stand corrected

Well now i been playing in italy for a bit in pbem and vs AI. And tigers and panthers are chewing me up and spitting me out. I bounce Bazooka round son em satchel charges flamethrowers wolverine tds shermans 57 mm at guns and Most of the time they fire back and first shot hits. EVEN if i move at top speed. If i go slower than wide open IM dead even if its just to pop out behind a house fire 1 shot and go back. Fiorst shot of return fire im usualy dead. Not to mention they Kill any infantry after there first shot especialy bazooka teams. So I dont think theres any problem with german tanks. From where im egtting eaten at allies tansk suck and the british are worse than most others.

I believe that Paul has addressed this in the new oob's, with the higher velocity guns, and consideration for finer optics, don't quote me, but I think this is the case.

------------------
Mike Amos
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

Krull's post is interesting.

He's observed that '43 Cats are doing very well against the US, while the thread began with the complaints that '44 Cats were not.

Here's my hypothesis about this: Crew Experience.

'43 Italy - I'd guess that the HG Division, plus maybe some DAK escapees and a unit or two from the East. All highly trained and probably experienced.

But, in the West, in '44, with the possible exception of SS units, weren't the Panzermen much less experienced? Any of you guru's out there able to answer for sure?

Alex

AmmoSgt: Rommel never faced Patton in battle, in both cases one of them wasn't commanding. NAfrica was as close as they got, and though it was the force Rommel had, it wasn't him commanding them. Rommel probably would've been scorched anyway, but the legendary matchup never took place.

While I understand your anti-whiner type stance, my argument is that IF they recall the series of arguments we had, which ended up with the conclusion I recalled, they wouldn't call for 5-to-1 superiority anyway, but would rather just make the general claim that a tank that an army officer claimed had a 5-to-1 advantage (talking strictly kills) over his own tanks, would show something better than perhaps the 1-to-1 results they feel they are getting, irrespective of whether that's actually the case. I've never pitted Tigers (though the army officer said Panthers) against basic Shermans so I cannot say, but I have seen it reap havoc against T34s.

I have to suspect that there are some, perhaps those in this forum excepting, who get this really killer tank, and then think they can ram it through opposing forces like a level boss in Super Mario Brothers might. Nope, you have 80mm side armor or 60mm in the case of the Panther, and you're going be vulnerable. I do, however, emphatize with those who haven't figured out the percentage chances yet, as I'm in the same boat and it can be frustrating. As I've said before, it seems to me that when I fire a tank against another tank, that the 40%-70% alleged hit ratio is a lot closer to 20%-30%. It's goofy, because the ratios lower than 40% and those higher than 70% seem to reflect the result.

I would suggest that the Tigers couldn't have achieved the 5-to-1 ratio against Shermans as the Panther did. Why? Because the Panther is faster than the Sherman while the general useable roadspeed and practice of the Tigers made it slower. In the case of the Panther, it could sit behind a hill, blow a tank or two apart, and then escape to find another position, to try the same thing from, but the Tiger pretty much had to stand it's ground.

Now if you gave silly AOE testing to Tigers vs. Panthers on just which would slay the most Shermans the Tiger would probably fare better, but as often is the case, people either use their Tigers or Panthers either on better or worse terms than a silly meeting engagement controlled by the AI, where it may appear to be a fair test of value.

Oh, just read through the whole thread, but I responded to your post first, so please forgive my what turned out to be reemphasizing the Rommel/Patton point already made.


[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited February 15, 2001).]

I think it's all up to experience and tactics. I recently played two PBEM games, and faced Tiger I's in both of them. One of my opponents sniped my tank killers from a low hill at the edge of my visbility, and killed them all at the cost of one Tiger (which was due to air attack), then rolled right over my poor infantry.

In the other battle the guy rolled four Tigers across an open field in front of a hill with 4 of my M10's on it. They all died the first turn, and the M10 isn't all that good.

So I think the Tigers are just overestimated, it's the man, not the machine .


Rickenbacker

Rickenbacker: I would suggest the Tigers did not have frontal hits, but in the case of the hill, likely top hits. That brings me to another point I've so recently discovered when the Finns were making a general mess of my first battle tested Soviet force, and that is, just what is the 'bottom' hull rating for these tanks? I can't tell you specifically, but my KV1s were taking hits on the belly from small arms fire (meaning penetrating hits)!!! Based on what little I've studied the armor ratings down there, it would seem that ALL tanks with over 60mm armor had at least 10mm bottom armor, so the small arms fire shouldn't be able to penetrate, and before anyone says it, it was small junk carried by regular Finn infantry such as SMGs/LMGs/rifles and though satchel charges were being used I can tell the difference between a satchel charge and small arms fire. Now, there are MMGs and HMGs which could penetrate 10mm or less, but that wasn't used.

Charles odds are against a frontal kill on Tigers buy U S 76L54 on wolverines they have 9 rounds of APCR pen 196 against 175 turret front 100 hull front and regular AP is 137 i believe making everything outside the frontal turret a possible kill..I'm in a PBEM game wolverines against Tigers i have killed tigers first shot frontal at 13 hexes with an M-10 and i have fired 5 wolverines about 20 times in one turn, on one Tiger side /turretfront orientation , getting 7 hits , everybody parked blazing away and only stopped when the crew broke and bailed out .. i then had to expend all the remains 50 cal on the 5 wolverines and bring up a track and fire it's MG,s and then call in mortars just so that crew doesn't rally.. hop back in the tank and knock out 3 M-10's next turn or something ..
I have seen my armor disappear in a cloud of smoke leaving 4 dead tanks when i make a bad move .. i have seen tigers in the open suffer the same fate at my hands ... it all depends on the player and the skill and skill just means you are going to screw up less than the other guy everybody can do it right every once in a while ... some just do it more than others folks will improve over time and with experience ...
But if you start thinking that it isn't a skill problem ..thats it's the game and some hidden agenda by the Luminatti ..then you tend not to try and improve ..it is outside your control .... I just want folks to consider that maybe it ain't the game..or at least it ain't ALL the games fault ..BUT that said if there is in fact any possibility that ,like the close assault triple effect bug ..it needs to be looked into ... I myself don't see this problem ...I was cleaning American clocks with Panzers long before i started making tiger schnitzle with wulfraum dumplings
I think Paul Vebber has commented on this issue several times . Paul looks into things ..he listened about the close assault thingy .i bet he has checked in on this ...folks need to address their level of profesional understanding on military matters everybody can learn more tech specs on tanks is easier to grasp than the actual tactics that turn spec's into combat leathality ..and just knowing spec's doesn't mean you know squat about tactics ..I am not trying to be mean or ugly or condencending about this ..dang it ..I'm just asking folks to seriously consider how much about tactics they actually know ..it ain't a crime to be less than an expert ..an if you aren't as good as you want to be study and practice using this wonderful game .. thats all..

AmmoSgt: Ohhhhh, so it's APCR is it? Still, if Shermans were equipped with APCR as they are in the game, then why was those historic comments made by that officer in regards to the loss to Panthers ratio? I don't know if much if any but the PZIIIH for the Gerries have APCR (well if you exclude light tanks like the PZIIC).

So, the question remains then, and it is valid: if the US has a very high ratio of APCR, above what was historic (by historic I don't refer to what the tank "could" carry as APCR goes, but what the tanks in reality ended up with on average), then isn't that clouding the simulation considerably (of course the high loss ratio to Panthers might be explained away by loaders putting in regular AP first and then getting destroyed beofre they got to APCR, or the Panthers engaged beyond the APCR range)? I haven't fought US vs Germany, but on second thought I don't recall anyone ever complaining that the T34s were clobbering far too often, and now I'm starting to see there is some legitimacy to saying the US is too strong. I hope this will be looked into most effectively.

Although pricing isn't very good anyway, I would think that APCR in a very large amounts would drive the price quite high indeed. Perhaps this has been accounted for? For what little I dabbled with the US, I was wondering why even the light tanks seemed quite high. The US can be quite difficult to get 80-100 units in, with the start of a campaign, if you are starting only with 3195 or so.

I vould like to point out zat zee tank is for killing infantry not tanks, zee anti-tank gun is for zee killing of zee tank.

The best use for a Tiger is to buy one platoon of Ostwinds and convert one to a Tiger and park them somewhere away from your other troops.

Serously the advantage of the Tiger and Panther shows up in the 30 to 40 hex range close up the American 76mm will canopen one. The King Tiger on the other hand is practicly un-killable with American tanks. Rocket carring Aircraft are the only solution I have found for them. I tend to get a lot of hits with penatration and no damage, in oneside and out the other.

Hi, I just want to stir the stew a bit...

First of all, statistics such as "5-1 kill ratio" are absolutely meaningless without a tactical (and even strategic) context. Here's an example:

In Vietnam, the F-4 claimed a 7-1 victory ratio over opposing MIG's. This was possible because the F-4 had better avionics (like the Tiger's optics) and heat seeking missiles (like the Tiger's long range gun). The F-4 was also a faster plane which could break off from a negative tactical situation at its choosing.

Unfortunately, the ROE enforced visual ID on targets and the F-4 sometimes found itself in a negative tactical situation- Superior training often paid off to save the pilot and plane. For the MIG-19 was a much better aircraft inside of a mile: better gunned; better aerobatically- had all engagements been at this range, between equal pilots, the kill ratio would have been 7-1 in favor of the MIG.

Someone had mentioned that they weren't more accurate at 10 hexes (500 yards) with the Tiger than with the PzIII or than the Shermans. No kidding. An advantage in muzzle velocity (in a large caliber gun) or optics at this range is miniscule- 500 yards is extreme short range in a tank. Exactly what optical system is going to give advantage at that range? A sniper will hit often enough at that range with a simple scope. In fact, why not open the hatch and look at the guy you're trying to hit, you'll be able to see him waving back as you fire. You won't even need binoculars. For that matter, why not fire your napoleonic cannon at him, at 500 yards you'll have about the same chance of hitting a tank as you would with anything else.

The optics and gun in the Tiger give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, just as the avionics and weapons on the F-4 give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, thus a similar kill ratio. One should not expect 5-1 kill ratios at 500 yards, a range at which most tanks have a degree of parity.

Cheers,

------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Originally posted by Scipio Africanus:
An advantage in muzzle velocity (in a large caliber gun) or optics at this range is miniscule- 500 yards is extreme short range in a tank. ...

The optics and gun in the Tiger give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, just as the avionics and weapons on the F-4 give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, thus a similar kill ratio. One should not expect 5-1 kill ratios at 500 yards, a range at which most tanks have a degree of parity.

Actually, it's the range 1000-1500m (1100-1650y) that matters, after that even the mighty 88mm gun wouldn't penetrate a T34.

Problem is - this is some 22..33 hexes in SPWaW - and you'll find your Tigers pretty much unable to hit the broad side of the barn at that ranges.
(Besides, if you set visibility to >21 [24?] you'll find that units can see through one hex of woods etc, not very realistic, too)

In general the engagement range for tanks is way to low in SPWaW, but I don't know if this can be changed at all ...

And if you look at the unit stats, you'll find that the Tigers are much better than the Shermans .. but don't forget that crew quality strongly decreases after '43.
The effect of Amor Command Rating and general experience is often underestimated .. more than 15 points of difference between opposing forces will make it a bloodbath most times ..
so before complaining 'bout the unit stats, switch "country training" OFF ("true troop cost" too, and you'll find that most of your troubles with unit pricing have vanished), set the experience in the "preferences" to 70 or such, and than go back testing ..

Arralen

PS: .. and I'm so tired of these complaints, really ..


[This message has been edited by Arralen (edited February 15, 2001).]

Arralen

PS: .. and I'm so tired of these complaints, really ..


[This message has been edited by Arralen (edited February 15, 2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

Me too. Fact is, If we look at the ranges
that we engage at most of the time during a typical game, one begins to realize that we
are in that "rough parity" window all too often. The usual reason for this, aside from too much LOS obstruction, is that we are often suffering under some kind of time constraint. So what do we do? We get in
too close, too quick, often in violation of
sensible doctrine in an effort to use brute
pressure to force a fast but messy outcome to
achieve scenario objectives. When weapons do
not behave (or endure) well under these conditions we get cranky. We wonder why these situations don't compare well with the historical accounts we've become so familiar with. The answers are usually there, and I believe have less to do with game flaws than our own decisions (delusions?) about the conduct of a particular battle. In any event, when games (such as this one) first became available which could simulate tactical weapon (and troop) behavior in such minute detail, one of the earliest truths that slammed home was this: As in life, even mediocre weapons could be deadly when skillfully handled, and nothing, no matter how sophisticated, is invulnerable close up.



------------------

Greg.

37 mill AA...
can suddenly ruin your day.

Arralen and Greg ...and the people said..Amen

[This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited February 15, 2001).]

I don't have time to read any of the posts since late this afternoon Texas time, but I ran across this quote from "United States Tanks of World War II" by George Forty, which we've heard countless times, but here goes:

pg. 140 With over 1,300 Tigers and nearly 6,000 Panthers produced by the end of the war, their effect on Allied armor was considerable - especially when it usually took at least five Shermans to knock out one Tiger or Panther! In addition, one should perhaps consider such heavyweights as the Tiger II, the Konigstiger, 68 tons of super-heavy tank, mounting a long barrelled and even more deadly 88mm gun. The King Tiger could eliminate all of it's opponents with ease, so it is fortunate that the Germans were only able to produce 489 of these battle winners, which did not enter combat service until June 1944.

Have read a bit the posts now and I would suggest Arralen read up on Tiger stories and data. Check Fprado's website:

Actually, it's the range 1000-1500m (1100-1650y) that matters, after that even the mighty 88mm gun wouldn't penetrate a T34.

Now from Prado:

"In tank versus tank combat, the 8.8 cm KwK.43 gun is effective in destroying all of the types of enemy tanks, including the Stalin, at ranges up to 1500 meters. Under favorable conditions, the T-34 and T-43 tanks can also be knocked out at ranges up to 3000 meters. As previously experienced in the West with Allied tanks, it was often observed that the Russian tanks declined to fight Tigers or turned and fled after their first tank was knocked out. The same thing applies to the Russian assault guns as to the Stalin tanks. Kills at over 1500 meters have not yet occurred."

Also note these charts from Prado:

The 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was a very accurate gun capable of first-round hits at ranges exceeding 1000 meters. The estimated accuracy is given as the probability (in percentage) of hitting a target 2m high and 2.5m wide, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank. These tables are based on the assumption that the actual range to the target has been determined. Firing on the practice range was more accurate than was normally obtained due to the stress of combat conditions. This difference is shown in the tables below by the figures in brackets.

The effectiveness of firepower that can be delivered by the main gun is dependant upon the penetration ability of the armor piercing rounds, inherent accuracy of the gun, characteristics of the gun sights and ability to get quickly and accurately on target.

Penetration statistics for armor plate were expressed in terms of the thickness in mm that could be penetrated when laid back at an angle from the vertical of 30°. The penetrating ability of armor piercing rounds fired from the 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was determined by tests conducted at firing ranges which proved that the results shown in the tables below could be achieved.

MAIN GUN DATA

PLEASE NOTE:
88mm KwK 36 L/56 : main gun installed on the Tiger I
88mm KwK 43 L/71 : main gun installed on the Tiger II.

1. ACCURACY:


Gun 88mm KwK 36 L/56 88mm KwK 43 L/71
Ammunition Pzgr. 39 Pzgr. 40 Gr.39 HL Pzgr. 39/43 Pzgr. 40/43
Range
500m 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (98) 100 (100) 100 (100)
1000m 100 (93) 99 (80) 94 (62) 100 (85) 100 (100)
1500m 98 (74) 89 (52) 72 (34) 95 (61) 97 (68)
2000m 87 (50) 71 (31) 52 (20) 85 (43) 89 (47)
2500m 71 (31) 55 (19) 74 (30) 78 (34)
3000m 53 (19) 61 (23) 66 (25)
3500m 51 (17)
4000m 42 (13)


2. ARMOR PENETRATION:

Gun 88mm KwK 36 L/56 88mm KwK 43 L/71
Ammunition Type Pzgr.39 Pzgr.40 Gr.39HL Pzgr.39/43 Pzgr.40/43
Shell Weight 10.2 Kg 7.3 Kg 7.65 Kg 10.2 Kg 7.3 Kg
Initial Velocity 773 m/s 930 m/s 600 m/s 1000 m/s 1130 m/s
Range
100m 120mm 170mm 90mm 202mm 237mm
500m 110mm 155mm 90mm 185mm 217mm
1000m 100mm 138mm 90mm 165mm 197mm
1500m 91mm 122mm 90mm 148mm 170mm
2000m 84mm 110mm 90mm 132mm 152mm

Also from Prado:

"Using the 8.8 cm Panzergranate , successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well long ranges. The most favorable range is 1,200 to 2,000 meters. At ranges up to 2,000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on the first or at the latest by the second shot. Additionally, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant.
However, with good visibility success is even possible at ranges over 3,000 meters. As an example, at ranges from 2,500 meters to 3,000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks (of which three were moving across the front)."