Matrix Games Forums

I just post another test results between IIIG and T 34m40 here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007812

The results may surprise you.

Could someone please try to test the PzIII vs. T-34 whilst setting troop quality to be equal? It makes a major, major difference in 1941 with Ger vs. SU. My question is this: I don't feel anything in 7.0 is wildly out of whack. Perhaps a minor trimming to the penetration value of the 50mm gun? The 50L60 should be fine as is, I mean the... Uhmm... Whatsit? L42? That one.

From Serga magazine.
special issue nr 4 "Operación Barbarroja"
By Carlos Caballero, Dionisio García and Ricardo Sanz.

Table nr 1: Feldheer East, 22 june 1941

Panzer I .......... 281
Panzer II ......... 743
Panzer 35 (t)...... 157
Panzer 38 (t)...... 651
Panzer III ........ 979
Panzer IV ......... 444
Armourd Command ... 143
StugIII ........... 250
total.............. 3648

As you can see PzIII represent 25% of the total. It was not a "rare" item.

Originally posted by Kuad:
Could someone please try to test the PzIII vs. T-34 whilst setting troop quality to be equal? It makes a major, major difference in 1941 with Ger vs. SU. My question is this: I don't feel anything in 7.0 is wildly out of whack. Perhaps a minor trimming to the penetration value of the 50mm gun? The 50L60 should be fine as is, I mean the... Uhmm... Whatsit? L42? That one.

---

Kuad, I performed such a test on the link I posted above.

TABLE Nr 3 CONDITION OF SOVIET TANKS IN JUNE, 1941
(Only Western Military Districts)

Military........................Little..Great
District..Total Operative Repairs Repairs Rebuild
--------------------------------------------------
Leningrad..1857....7........1536....210....104
Baltic.......1549...378........896....203.....72
Spec.west..2900...470.......1722....385....323
Kiev.........5465..1124.......3644....298....379
Odessa.....1011...178........565....151....117
-------------------------------------------------
Total.....12782...2157......8383....1247...995

From Serga special issue nr 4 "Operación Barbarroja"
By Carlos Caballero, Dionisio García y Ricardo Sanz.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mikimoto ]

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mikimoto ]</p>

Looks like the Leningrad District had some explaining to do.

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Looks like the Leningrad District had some explaining to do.

---

Yes, it wonders me too...

I just did a little experiment where i replaced the OOB-81 (Soviet) from 6.1 into the 7.0 game

The results of replaying a matchup of equal T-34's and Pz-III's was a bit more stomach-able shall we say?

Even without APCR, the Pz's could get a kill shot on the flanks, but not nearly so easily now and generally needed to be within 200 yards preferably though i got a few minor penetrations out to 450 yards.

On the issue of numbers and kill %'s, lets remind ourselves again that the tank kills primarily come from other sources, not other tanks. the RMZ quotes less than 10% of all T-34 casualties to enemy Panzers, but to AT guns and infantry. I've read that the best way KV and even T-34 tanks were dealt with on the Eastern Front was via the German infantry and the jury rigs they came up with to deal with the beasts (like slapping an AT mine under the recess for a KV turret.

Zologa in his difinitive work, commented that the Germans were largely able to deal with T34's because the Soviets tended to attack rigidly, and more importantly in the T34's case, in isolated penny packets allowing them to be outflanked and outmassed by the German panzers.

As a collaboration of this data, the RMZ points out that even in 42, the T-34 made up at the most only 1/3 of the available Russian tank force, the rest were lend-lease, some heavy KV and a good doseage of light tanks (+ a few suvivors from the 1930's crowd)

Russian tank losses were so severe that the brigade became the largest organizational tank unit in the Red Army with their STAVKA reserve measured in "tank brigades" Rudimentory 'tank armies' were attempted but such concentrations were rare outside of the one failed spring offensive in 42.

in WAW though, most of the above is bunk in terms of practical application, unless players are seeking aboslute realistic battle scenes. I did a little of this myself in my currrent Sov campaign, usually i go all T-34's and unless my crews are fresh from tank school i can do better than historical, knowing that i've got an inordinate concentration of modern tanks in my core. This time i did the 1/3 to 1/2 option, filling out the rest of my core with light tanks. A much tougher going but the battlefield superiority of the T-34 helps me hold my own. (well that and a brain dead AI)

As a German campaigner i used to dread the prospect of going to Russia, knowing that my precious panzer crews would be in for a rough time facing T-34's and KV tanks.....hoping and praying (and more importantly, using tactics on the fly!) to survive long enough for the first long barreled 75 AT guns and Pz-IV equiped units to become available. Long barreled Pz-III's help, but not enough to stave off that longing for 75's.

Now? might as well go all T-34 as Soviet because the vunder-tank is appearing more and more as a medicore entry.

Still playing with 7.0 but thats my observation as of today. I'm starting to wonder if maybe such 'sweeping' changes might better wait for a game engine that can better handle it like CL is supposed to be. With WAW and it's oft mentioned 6 slab sided armor limitation the tweaks, backed up as they may be by researched test data, might be producing results that might be considered, too extreme?

I just don't get it! If I liked 6.1 better than 7.0 I would play that. (That is not the case).

I might even play 7.0 with 6.1 OOBs.... I might decide to play 6.1 with 7.0 OOBs.

Failing that, I might make my own OOBs.

Good grief!

Originally posted by Redleg:
I just don't get it! If I liked 6.1 better than 7.0 I would play that. (That is not the case).

I might even play 7.0 with 6.1 OOBs.... I might decide to play 6.1 with 7.0 OOBs.

Failing that, I might make my own OOBs.

Good grief!

---

The idea was to see if a compromise between the two versions could be reached or not. I dont hate 7.0, and some of the changes i like, for example i agree with the reducing of Soviet ammo pen rating for the 76.2mm gun, and dont disagree with the raised stats for the German 50mm. but i'm more sangquine about the across the board ding given to Soviet and Soviet armor alone.

Check this, please:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/

And this: "The Germans were surprised by the Red Army&#8217;s equipment, especially the T-34. German 37mm and 50mm guns could not even dent the T-34 sloping frontal armor. Guns of 105mm had to be employed to stop them. As a stopgap measure, the Germans retooled and mounted captured Russian 75mm guns on panzer pzkpfw I chassis." came from:

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/frame1.htm

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mikimoto ]</p>

Mikimoto: You have to wonder about that source. I wonder whether they were claiming that 'only' 105mm guns were able to do the trick, or that only large guns in general, because everyone knows it was a piece of cake for the 88flak.

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Mikimoto: You have to wonder about that source. I wonder whether they were claiming that 'only' 105mm guns were able to do the trick, or that only large guns in general, because everyone knows it was a piece of cake for the 88flak.

---

or the 75mm long barrel on the Panther.....

The T34 was not an Abrams, but it was a good tank for its time. Mik I respect where you are coming from, and having not played 7.0 extensively I am hesitant to comment. The data is a bit odd however.

Perhaps the problem is'nt the T-34 at all. Perhaps the problem is the Pz-III, and more specificially, it's gun.

There is another tank which has'nt been mentioned that gave the Germans a rough treatment when it first debuted. This particular tank is probably the hands down winner of the butt-ugly contest of the year and would never make the front cover of Popular Mechanics. It was ungainly, had some bad design compromises and as such was more of a stop gap medium if ever there was one.

It did have two great facets though that gave it a short battlefield superiority, until the Germans countered by debuting the Mark III and IV "specials" as the long barrelled varients are known. Those two great/good facets were,

1) a heavy 75mm cannon with a good HE and AP ability

2) decent frontal protection with a moderate slope and good thickness.

I am of course reffering to the US M3 medium. Rommel himself made depressing comments on the debut of this American nightmare.....nightmare to his Panzers that is.

I just played a test desert scenerio pitting two Pz-IIIj (short barreled) platoons vs two platoon of Lee/Grants.

Guess who won? The Pz-III platoons by a wide margin.

Primary culprit again was APCR ammo.....it allowed the Panzers to take out the Lees frontally out to the maximum APCR range of 500 yards. AP was harder, but a kill was scored nevertheless.

I may have to take back what i said about APCR levels being ok. Each Panzer had an average of only 4 rounds, yet the high German exp (and in this case the high target size of the Lees) made that distinction meaningless.

So again we see the same paradox only this time with a different theatre and a different enemy. Judging by the results, one suddenly finds it odd that the Germans needed scramble to upgrade their weapons....they seem to be doing a fine job as it is, even against new T-34's, KV's and now we can add M3's to the list as well.

To be honest though, i'm not sure if the problem is the representation of Pzgr40 ammo....or of the upgraded penetration characterisics of the more and more uber-looking medium tank gun of the war, the 50L42 KwK

comments?

Christ almighty, I'm frankly sick to death of these nit-picking arguments on SPWaW OOB values. All you guys should be knowledgeable enough to use the provided game editors. If you don't like thw provided OOBs, you have the power to change them in any way you see fit. If any of you have your own "definitive" SPWaW database, I'm sure we'd love to see it.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: KG Erwin ]</p>

Originally posted by KG Erwin:
Christ almighty, I'm frankly sick to death of these nit-picking arguments on SPWaW OOB values. All you guys should be knowledgeable enough to use the provided game editors. If you don't like thw provided OOBs, you have the power to change them in any way you see fit. There are plenty of active threads in which to argue the fine points. Use them.

---

I thought this was one of them? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Nitpicking is to be expected from grognard wargamers who want to feel that they are playing the most accurate version possible, as long as it's respectful, i dont see a problem with it. Yes there is the editor, but change to much, too radically on your own and will you feel better? Or will you worry that maybe you are the one who's off?

For what it's worth, my suspicions on the mark III gun might be off instead of WAW. Just downloaded the latest SP:WAW ver 5 and set up the same exact scenerio with the Grant tanks that i mentioned above. Guess what? same results, and as Paul has pointed out, tanks in the Cameo version of SP get a hell ova lot more APCR than in WAW. Checked their encyc too....ratings are of course, more generalized using the old SP system but the German gun ratings are very similar for the 50L42 and L60. Ratings differ greatly with the Russian guns and armor ratings.

A standard feature of SPWWII though that got me to thinking, and how could it as the scenerio i described was ALOT harder to set up because of it (did'nt use the editor, but the battle builder), was that maybe the problem is being created partially by the small default maps in WAW...they do tend to be close up and personal. In the Cameo version the maps are three times as large making onrushing panzer III's against Grants a more harrowing experience by far.

just a thought anyway. Intersting diversion, hav'nt revisited the Cameo version since before WAW first came out.

If one accepts that the 50L42 is accurately depicted then the focus should shift towards the downgrading of the Russian tanks. Hardly a minor 'nitpick' since it greatly affects gameplay.

Yes we all know about the OOB editor. But for a PEBM gamer what counts is the 'stock' OOB. I havn't got enough games under my belt to have a valid opinion yet. I do have an observation though. WW2 was the start of modern combined arms tactics. Anyone who lines up their tanks and goes toe to toe is missing the whole point.
T.

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Mikimoto: You have to wonder about that source. I wonder whether they were claiming that 'only' 105mm guns were able to do the trick, or that only large guns in general, because everyone knows it was a piece of cake for the 88flak.

---

Hello Charles22 and Sven.

I finded this link in "Spwaw Threas Hall of Fame Forum"... the fact is you can find dozens ow webpages whith lot of information... sometimes contradictory and sometimes weird.
In the Serga magazine there is a photo gallery that shows two or three photos of 10,5 German guns in AT position, and photo text indicates they were used in that role. I liked that link cause it said what I have checked first in the magazine.
In the WWW you can find lot of information... but the point here is they universally (almost) agree in that T-34 and KV's were a rude shock for the Germans. And they tried all they had to stop those tanks, finding that 88's were the most succesful solution (with AT ambushes, infantry assaults, etc), if you want to find a "gun" solution.
By the way, some months ago, all wargamers agreed in that point: T34 and KV's superior to German tanks, 50L42 guns making the hard work only from flank/rear and at point blank, and the 50L60 performing something better, but not much... I recall the tactics were smoke, arty barrage, inf assaults, flanking and 88s, I readed that in the forum continuosly, furiosly, until the vomit. Where are the people that pointed that? But since version 7 it seems History is rewriten in a strange way.

And check this on "real" German tactics in the East Front:

http://www.feldgrau.com/pnzfwd.html

I'm not sure but I thought the Soviets usually had an advantage in numbers am I correct? If this is true I don't think meeting engagements are a good measuring stick. I think an evenly matched battle between the Germans v. Soviets would be won by the Germans most times. If the Soviets have numbers then it seems to be more of a match. I've only just begun the switch from 6.whatever to 7.0 I play as the Soviets a lot so I'll have some observations soon.