Matrix Games Forums

on a rifle range the average troop hits the target 95% of the time usually in or around the bull's eye and generally gets a passing score sometimes even sharpshooter or expert but at least marksman in order to pass basic training .. at least while i was in ..on pop up targets on a range bigger man size targets hitting about 50% of the time will get you qualified ...In veitnam it took on the average 100,000 rounds of small arms to kill 1 soldier ..seems that loud noises distract even the best marksmen

Hi Greg, Arralen,

I agree with Greg that the game sometimes forces a commander into bad tactics- but this is easily modified in setting up a scenario (I only play email so no problem)

I agree with Arralen that one can easily change the experience ratings if one chooses and that the Tiger has a hard time hitting at long ranges but...

It IS a whole lot better at long range than any Sherman or T-34.

My point was that I think the game is actually really well done, that the Tiger is very good at the ranges at which it should be employed, and that putting it into a knife fight is a tactical decision that should be understood as both risky and probably unnecessary in many situations.

Nonetheless, someone is bound to post something like "I can't believe that Sherman knocked out my Tiger with a 600 yard side shot, the Tiger was historically invincible," etc.

Personally, I don't have any problem keeping a Tiger platoon alive and kicking as the foundation of a battalion (yes plenty of support), especially under realistic range setting (at least a mile- 35 hexes; anything less and you're fighting in the fog or a thunderstorm).

Cheers,

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

I'd kinda like to tie AmmoSgt's comment in with Scipio (great name, by the way) and Aralen's analysis. I seem to remember reading some time ago that in combat conditions, a surprising percentage of the kills were by a very small percentage of the shooters. I think that this applies to tanks as well, but if you call me on it I don't have the proof. As far as infantry go, the number of rounds per kill went up as the weapons advanced. The advent of M16s with full auto and large (compared to the M14) ammo loads that a troop could haul contributed, IMO.

In the SP context, Tigers were deployed in special units, with experienced crews and used to stiffen units with lesser equipment. A major contributor to the complaints about tigers on this forum is aggravated by the ahistorical usage. I am a violator here too, but in my defense, I will add that if the AI is going to face me with full TO&E units equipped with latest and greatest hardware, I am going to equip my units with the best I can "buy". That does mean that I will lose tigers in the most astounding ways (I swear that one of my platoons met Sgt. Rock in a Russian uniform....) and that I may not match the historical kill percentages.

chanman: I agree, basically, for one problem the game has, is that Tiger crews are taken from a national pool in SPWAW, and they aren't attempting to put crews individual to the type of tanks, so that Tiger crews might've typically been 85 rating, while the national pool might be at 65.

In the last quote I copied from FPrado's, I founf this one MOST interesting:

The most favorable range is 1,200 to 2,000 meters.

The first question that goes through my mind is WHY. "Perhaps" it's because of limited traverse by the Tiger (on that topic check this from FPrado's:

To quickly traverse the turret on to a target, the Tiger II was outfitted with a hydraulic motor for the turret drive. The speed at which the turret was traversed under power was dependant on the engine speed and selection of a low or high range by the gunner. With the high range power traverse engaged and the engine turning over at 2000 rpm, the turret could be traversed through 360 degrees in 19 seconds. At maximum allowable engine speed of 3000 rpm, the turret could be traversed 360° in less than ten seconds. The hydraulic traverse enabled coarse laying in order for the gunner to quickly get the selected target within the sight picture.

, but I wonder if there's not another reason. Though they were speaking about gun effectiveness, were they really speaking about "ideal range" for the KTiger to be operating in, in other words, other things besides gunning are being taken to mind. If that is so, I would imagine it would be because they probably felt the side armor could withstand most AP fire up to 1200m, and when you consider a slower traverse that adds to it. But a 10 second traverse, possible, wow!

As to AmmoSgt's last comments, if I could apply them to the report of the KTiger destroying with a mere 18 rounds, 5 T34s at 2500 to 3000 range, with three moving, I would have to guess that the conditions he describes were precisely the conditions that KTiger shot from. For one thing, why shoot at a tank 3000m away if something is closer, and if something isn't closer, then obviously nothing was able to exchange fire with it, so it was under the most ideal conditions. Of course this game doesn't allow visibility beyond 2250m anyway. A distinct advantage for the general German tactics isn't accounted for (being able to fire long-range with some rear units, outside the reach of other tanks' main gun). Fortunately for the Germans at shorter range the slower turret traverses aren't taken into account from what I can see, but then the KTiger could 'manage' 10 seconds so how would you account for that (faster than the Sherman in that case)?

Another thing strikes my attention when you examine the Tiger chart on FPrado's site. Notice the one about gunnery and notice the shot at "arc" for the longer ranges. So, to relate the story of the 5 T34s knocked out I come with the conclusion that it's possible that if the targets were the basically square PZIVH, that the shots might've failed to penetrate, whereas it would work on a T34. Why? Because the trajectory of an arced shot had to come in from perhaps anywhere from a 10 to 45 degree angle, unlike at shorter ranges. If the shell comes in at say 45 degrees and the armor hit is sloped that amount it's a flat hit, whereas a target with a 0 degree slope would be better off. Actually, if hit, a T34 at 3000m may had been worse off than a Sherman being hit at 2000m (considering armor and slope only and not other factors).

Would like to clarify my earlier question...

I noticed playing the AI that fighting the M4 shermans with tigers that the shermans could take mult. hits before exploding. My understanding historically was that a M4 Sherman hit by a tiger or panther was very likely to go up in flames very easily. i noticed this multi. hit event at various ranges and situations not just at certain times but pretty much all situations. I know the tiger and panther can be killed by the better shermans or TD's that came later in the war. I am referring to the early or first couple of sherman types that came out when the US entered the war.
I have also noticed that T-34's are easier to kill than shermans, as mentioned by others in this thread. Which i believe is wrong, the T-34 is known to be a much better tank than the sherman except for the later war year version shermans.
I am not trying to be little the game and its designers. This is a great game and enjoy it very much. My questions are to find out whether my notions of the tanks are correct or not and wanting to know the truth.

ursus: I too have heard that Shermans brewed up easily, in fact at least one the variants was called "the Ronson" because of this. If there's any truth to it being more durable to hits than it ought, V.5 might solve that, but with what we have here, the tank was probably rated with the same 'survivability' as any medium tank. Perhaps it should be reduced one factor?

Originally posted by Charles22:
So, to relate the story of the 5 T34s knocked out I come with the conclusion that it's possible that if the targets were the basically square PZIVH, that the shots might've failed to penetrate, whereas it would work on a T34. Why? Because the trajectory of an arced shot had to come in from perhaps anywhere from a 10 to 45 degree angle, unlike at shorter ranges. If the shell comes in at say 45 degrees and the armor hit is sloped that amount it's a flat hit, whereas a target with a 0 degree slope would be better off. Actually, if hit, a T34 at 3000m may had been worse off than a Sherman being hit at 2000m (considering armor and slope only and not other factors).

Charles, there's one small flaw in your arc theory. A shell arriving on a trajectory that would cause a 0 degree hit on the front armor of a T34, would most likely ricochet on a non-sloped armor plate. The result of the deflection would bounce the round right into the thin armor of the drivers compartment top. The original Panther (Ausf A I think) had the same problem with the gun mantle creating a shot trap with the same effect. Just something to think about.



------------------
USMCGrunt

-When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ursus:
Would like to clarify my earlier question...

I noticed playing the AI that fighting the M4 shermans with tigers that the shermans could take mult. hits before exploding. My understanding historically was that a M4 Sherman hit by a tiger or panther was very likely to go up in flames very easily. i noticed this multi. hit event at various ranges and situations not just at certain times but pretty much all situations. I know the tiger and panther can be killed by the better shermans or TD's that came later in the war. I am referring to the early or first couple of sherman types that came out when the US entered the war.

I don't know; you know in order to determine
what the actual truth may be, we are going to have to know a lot more of the details under which people are experiencing these
so called probability aberrations. With regard to the Sherman, you're right about the early versions being vulnerable in general, but here again, under what specific conditions? We know that the M4A3 production began using "wet-stowage" which theorhetically stopped secondary touch offs from shell splinters; which of course was offset by Americans propensity to hoard extra
load-out in the vehicle. In 44, extensive use of applique armor began to be used over well known vulnerable spots, which should account for some multiple hit resistance. With regard to the term "Ronson," that little "saw" has been applied by everyone from Americans to the Israelis to describe flare up propensity in everything from the
M113 to the Bradley. There's lots of variables here folks. And how well some of this stuff is modeled in the game, only the
coders know for sure. How this stuff is going to behave at any given moment is subject to angle and motion of target, motion of firing unit, particular design variation of target, range, terrain target is situated in, and more. We all know the
historical stats covering Tiger, T-34, Sherman, and Panther. Whether or not a given scenario will or should reflect this
in such a small snapshot is subject to a lot of things. Given a hundred such scenarios; yes, these well-known performance stats should be evident. YOUR personal results may vary. Is there room for improvement?
Probably. But overall, this simulation models reality pretty good. I don't think anything slanted has been plugged into the Sherman architecture in the code. Surely the same methods of accounting for vehicle architecture are being used by the algorithms for the Sherman as any other vehicle. But there are some drastic differences in the varients of this tank in particular. add your own peculiar
habits and tactics into the mix, and you will certainly see stuff that doesn't square with history. Personally, MY Shermans don't hold up well against Tigers or Panthers. I must use combined arms to gang up on them to get results. If the Shermans are left to do the job alone, they often get beat up.

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

Greg.

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

Greg where in the rules does it say you can use "combined arms" to kill anything .. you need to be investigated ... you probaly stupe to using "Tactics" have you NO shame ..... some people ..i swear

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
The odds aren't with any tank in World war 2 to get first round hits maybe 1 outta three times maybe if firing at a staionary target from the halt a kilometer and a half away ... Under what conditions are you talking about ??? what experience levels are involved ?? Tigers and Panthers do have higher rating on rangefinder and fire control but thats not the only stuff that effects accuracy .PZ III's have a better stab rating so if movement is involved I would expect higher hits from PZIII's you just upgraded to them that means you lost experience points and that would affect their accuracy negatively.. I think both Tigers and Panthers suffer from an inflated reputation from Hollywood and the Mythology of War that tends to make the Other Guys Good stuff Great ... Rate of fire on tigers is a 4 on panthers a 5 and on PZIII's a 6 so PZIII's are going to comeout ahead on a quck draw sitruation where the target is not in veiw a full turn especially compounded by the suppeior Stab on the PZIII's but the tactical situation has been changing to more things to suppress you did the national ratings change in '43?? i can't remember you may have lower national levels that could be affecting things ..explain further

WHERE do YOU come up with your erroneous comments ? Your comment about 1st round hits has NO substance whatsoever ! The Tiger I was in essence, the M1 Abrams of it's time. The vehicle had exceptionally thick armor, sophisticated Fire Control, and a main gun that would become legendary, the German 88mm Kwk L/56. This gun was was VERY accurate being capable of 1st round hits in excess of 1,000 meters (20 SPWAW Hexes). Extracting the following from Fabio Prado's wonderful The Armor Site webpage should give you more insight on Tiger's abilities: "First-round hits were usually achieved with the 88mm KwK gun at ranges between 600 (12 Hexes) to 1,000 (20 Hexes) meters. At these ranges, the Panzer-Granate (Pzgr. 39, a armor-piercing, capped round with a explosive filler and tracer) absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor of T-34 tanks. After penetrating through the frontal armor, the Panzer-Granate usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the tank.....Even at ranges of 1500 meters (30 Hexes) and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition." The Panzerwaffe destroyed 10 Soviet tanks for every tank it lost during the War. This is a hellacious kill ratio. Something the Allies could NEVER boast about. Perhaps you would do well to research your comments before you exercise an opinion based on emotions and ignorance. Or better yet.....maybe you should just bake cookies !

Delta 32

For those of you who question the capabilities of the German Panzerwaffe during WWII,(Ammo Sgt this means YOU) in particular the legendary performance of the German Tiger E (or Tiger I as some know it) I suggest you research your comments before you haphazardly post them here. There is a major problem with the SPWAW engine. SPWAW has limitations preventing historical depiction of gun accuracy and armor penetrations. See my posting to this forum of 4 FEB 01, TIGER E's in Version 5.0, and Paul Vebber's response. As for Ammo Sgt here's an extract from the book IRON FIST by Bryan Perrett, page 103: In the spring of 1943 the Tiger E would make it's presence felt for the first time in southern Russia. Colonel General Franz Halder's ( the German Army's Chief of Staff) Weapon's Evaluation Team recorded the course of action by Tiger units against the South-West Front under Vatutin and the Voronezh Front under Golikov. "Normally the Russian T-34's would stand in ambush at the hitherto safe distance of 1,350 yards and wait for the German tanks to expose themselves upon their exit from a village. They would then take the German tanks under fire while they were still outranged. Until now, these tactics had been foolproof. This time, however, the Russians had miscalculated. Instead of leaving the village the two Tigers (from Schwere Abteilung 503)took up well camouflaged positions and made full use of their longer range. Within a short time they knowcked out sixteen T34s which were sitting in open terrain and, when the others turned about, the Tigers pursued the fleeing Russians and destroyed 18 more tanks. It was observed that the 88mm armour piercing shells had such a terrific impact that they ripped off the turrets of many T34s and hurled them several yards. The German soldier's immediate reaction was to coin the phrase, "The T34 raises it's hat whenever it meets a Tiger!" The performance of the new German tanks was a great morale booster."

So Ammo Sgt...you see ? It's NOT Hollywood...it's fact ! And the SPWAW engine just doesn't do justice to the depiction of not only the TIGER E but, other weapon systems as well.

DELTA 32

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
on a rifle range the average troop hits the target 95% of the time usually in or around the bull's eye and generally gets a passing score sometimes even sharpshooter or expert but at least marksman in order to pass basic training .. at least while i was in ..on pop up targets on a range bigger man size targets hitting about 50% of the time will get you qualified ...In veitnam it took on the average 100,000 rounds of small arms to kill 1 soldier ..seems that loud noises distract even the best marksmen

For someone who worked in the supply field you sure do have lots of statistics you can't support ! What were you ? 76Y ?

Thank God, I spent 25 years in Combat Arms and didn't have to deal with women.

Don't you have some cookies you should be baking ?

Delta 32

Alright Delta32, enough! What is with the personal attacks and baiting here? I disagree with AmmoSgt myself sometimes but there's no reason for this.

------------------
Don

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
Stab Ratings are on Pg 86 of the Manual ver 4.1 and can be seen on the OOB editor ..Historically Tigers got killed by air power and bazookas and artilery and all sorts of stuff Shermans didn't square up against Tigers that often against just Shermans and Just Tigers or Just any tank against just other tanks..all sorts of stuff is usually involved Gasoline powered tanks tended to burn more often than diesel powered tanks but tigers burned just as bad as any other tank if the ammo was hit ..so try and check your sources I think you have expectations fueled by legend more than facts and they are getting in the way of your enjoying what the units can do by focusing on what you are finding they can't.. German tanks are just tanks with whatever advantages armor and gun can give them over other tanks and as any of the Axis Players that have played against me will tell you Tigers die at about twice as often as American Armor try me at PBEM sometime

You're telling this guy to check HIS sources ? Where do you come from implying TIGERS had Diesel engines. The TIGER E was powered by a Maybach HL 210, P45, V-12 PETROL (GASOLINE in English) engine ! Early TIGER E's having the 650 HP @ 3,000 RPM version. Later models being equipped with the 700 HP @ 3,000 RPM engine.

Not ONE German tank during the War was diesel equipped ! Perhaps YOU better check YOUR sources !

Please do some research before you post your unsubstantiated comments !

Delta 32

Originally posted by Don:
Alright Delta32, enough! What is with the personal attacks and baiting here? I disagree with AmmoSgt myself sometimes but there's no reason for this.

Gee Don....I'm rebutting her half-ass comments. Nothing I dislike more than a know-it-all. Is it a personal attack to clarify an issue when someone makes unwarranted, unsubstantiated, less-than-factual comments ? This isn't the 1st time Ammo Sgt has angered members of the forum. Now because you choose NOT to rebut her assinine comments you rebuke me for doing so ?

Sorry...but if she continues to spout her half-truths about something she knows NOTHING about, I will continue to rebut her !

BTW....thanks for your comment. I appreciate it !

Delta 32

I don't care if you argue with her all day - this has gone back and forth for over 50 posts and you're sure not going to solve it making cracks about dealing with women and baking cookies. One of the great things about this forum has always been that this stuff is not done here - and now it's happened two nights in a row. Personally I don't care if someone thinks the Tiger is better than it actually was, or worse. I know what it can and cannot do in SPWAW, and that's all I care about. Going absolutely crazy with these posts over a game that we all love seems a little ridiculous to me.

Originally posted by Don:
You're right there, Sarge. There are many of us who knew next to nothing of these tanks when we started with SPWAW, and after hearing about them for so long you expect that when you use them every shot will result in a spectacular fiery kill! They miss like all tanks do, and they get blown up like all tanks do. Tactics had alot to do with it, or the Soviets would have had sucess long before they did with the T-34. Soviet troops did not launch a well coordinated combined arms attack against Germany until the Stalingrad encirclement.

In SPWAW, if you want 80% shot probabilities with a Tiger, you must lay off the op-fire and let the elite crew and optics do their job. Also do NOT let AT troops near - I have a picture of a Tiger that looked like swiss cheese from AT rounds!

Donnie....if tactics were the main ingredient in combat operations, we'd still be using Muskets ! Tactics usually follow weapons development and more often than not tactics are created or modified based on the performance capabilities of weapon systems. On 17 JAN 43 a TIGER E from 1st Companie schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 was lost to Soviet AT gun fire (AT round penetrated the thinner armor of the engine compartment). This loss occuring south of Leningrad on the Soviet Volkhov Front. Marshall Zhukov gaining knowledge of the knocked out TIGER E ordered it's recovery at all costs. The TIGER E was recovered by Soviet troops later that night. Examination of the captured TIGER E led DIRECTLY to the production of the Soviet heavy tank destroyer, the SU-152, armed with a 152mm gun-howitzer mounted on a KV chassis. As you can see by this example...tactics are not the primary reason battles are won. Rather it is the superior quality of one's equipment that improves the Combat Power of a unit, COMBINED with tactics accenting the proper employment of the equipment at hand, that wins battles. My point as it applies to SPWAW is that although the SPWAW engine provides a greater sense of small unit WW2 combat then any other simulation, it fails to properly simulate the capabilities of the weapon systems in the game. Furthermore from the example I provided above, one can see that to win battles the Foe must improve his equipment over his opponent's equipment. Tactics alone won't win Wars but, superior technology COMBINED with tactics adjusted to the equipment employed will ! Those of us complaining about the rendering of the combat model simulated in SPWAW, as it applies to weapon systems (in this case TIGER E), are justified in our complaints. The upcoming game by Matrix: COMBAT LEADER will fix these inadequacies in SPWAW....and SPWAW will go away. In the meantime SPWAW is the best we have and we can enjoy the amusement it provides.

Delta 32

Originally posted by Don:
I don't care if you argue with her all day - this has gone back and forth for over 50 posts and you're sure not going to solve it making cracks about dealing with women and baking cookies. One of the great things about this forum has always been that this stuff is not done here - and now it's happened two nights in a row. Personally I don't care if someone thinks the Tiger is better than it actually was, or worse. I know what it can and cannot do in SPWAW, and that's all I care about. Going absolutely crazy with these posts over a game that we all love seems a little ridiculous to me.

Donnie if you don't care about the manner in which a weapon system is simulated in the game, then why even worry about what is posted here ? BTW....my "cracks" about women in the military and baking cookies are MY OPINIONS ! Not "cracks" ! Lastly, it seems to me that the Tiger/Panther Accuracy post seems to really be an issue here. Seeing as it is heading toward 60 posts ! One of the all-time record posting subjects on this forum.
My suggestion to you is to refrain from reading these subject posts if it's going to upset you so much. After all, it's "just" a game, right ?

Delta 32

Sounds like Delta needs a PBEM game with me .. I'm registered in the 40 and the 43 leagues as Allies ..heck in the 43 league Delta dawn could use tigers ... oh and i was 55G primary 55B 55X and 55R secondary's

USMCGrunt: Yeah, I thought that might be the case, but on the other hand that would work only when the round had hit the tank straight on. In other words, some shots would go straight down, while others would go down and towards the horizon. I would imagine that if there were no horizontal direction to the bounce, that the tank wouldn't withstand the bounce, but of course that sort of situation would still be better than shell trajectory and hull slope being equal, although it may be an insignifigant advantage.