Matrix Games Forums

In an attempt to put some objectiveness in the discussion about the T 34 and Pz III, I did several tests last night.

Basic setup: Clear map with no terrain. All units’ morale, experience and armor command value sets at 100.

A. Proving ground type test: One vehicle fire on another vehicle using only the first shot while both vehicles are stationary. This is to test the armor vs. penetration.

B. Battlefield type test: Lets the computer run 10 tanks on each side to charge at a single objective hexes. Purpose to see whether rate of fire, fire control and accuracy are factors. This test probably will not be very accurate since the computer tends to charge into each other, so neutralize the strength of the T34.

A.
Pz III G vs T 34 m40 at 10 hexes Kills/10 shots Kill %
III G 7 3 7 5 3 50
T 34 2 1 0 1 1 14
* III G kills are a mixture of hull and turret hit. T 34 kills are turret hit only.


Pz III G vs T 34 m40 at 20 hexes Kill %
III G 2 1 0 2 1 12
T 34 0 0 0 0 0 0
* III G kills are a mixture of hull and turret hit.

B.
Pz III G vs T 34 m40 with 10 hexes visibility
1. 10 III G destroy. 5 T 34 destroy, 2 T34 abandon.
2. 10 III G destroy. 1 T 34 destroys.

Pz III G vs T 34 m40 with 20 hexes visibility
1. 2 III G destroy, 1 immobilize. 8 T 34 destroy, 2 abandon.
2. 9 III G destroy, 1 immobilize. 3 T 34 destroy.

Summary: III G could only kills T 34 by turret hits at close range only while the T 34 could kill at long range.

A.
Pz III H vs T 34 m40 at 10 hexes Kills/10 shots Kill%
III H 3 2 1 3 1 20
T 34 3 0 4 4 3 28
* All kills are turret hits

Pz III H vs T 34 m40 at 20 hexes Kills/10 shots Kill%
III H 1 0 0 0 1 4
T 34 0 0 0 0 0 0
* All kills are turret hits

B.
Pz III H vs T 34 m40 with 10 hexes visibility
1. 3 III H destroy. 9 T 34 destroy, 1 abandon
2. 4 III H destroy. 9 T 34 destroy, 1 abandon

Pz III H vs T 34 m40 with 20 hexes visibility
1. 5 III H destroy, 1 immobilizes. 10 T 34 destroy.
2. 3 III H destroy. 9 T 34 destroy.

Summary: APCR ammo double kills percentage for the III H, while the increase armor reduced kill to turret hits only. Even with APCR, the III H cannot penetrate the front armor of the T 34.

A.
Pz III J vs T 34 m40 at 10 hexes Kills/10 shots Kill%
III J 0 2 2 2 1 14
T 34 2 1 1 4 3 22
* All kills are turret hits

Pz III J vs T 34 m40 at 20 hexes Kills/10 shots Kill%
III J 2 1 2 1 0 12
T 34 0 0 0 0 1 2
* All kills are turret hits

B.
Pz III J vs T 34 m40 with 10 hexes visibility
1. 4 III J destroy, 1 abandon. 9 T 34 destroy, 1 abandon
2. 3 III J destroy. 9 T 34 destroy, 1 abandon

Pz III J vs T34 m40 with 20 hexes visibility
1. 9 III J destroy, 1 abandon. 9 T 34 destroy.
2. 3 III J destroy. 9 T 34 destroy, 1 abandon.

Summary: The stat for the III J is consistent with those of the III H. At close range, the one who score a turret hit will kill, but at long range, the T 34 is invulnerable to the III series.

The primary conclusion I learned from these tests are that, the T 34, even with its decrease armor and gun penetration, still outclass the III series at long range, but is vulnerable to APCR ammo at shorter range. However, once the APCR ammo is gone, the III series needs a turret hit in order to kill a T 34. Finally, the lesson from the battlefield tests is that if you play the Soviet, don’t play the same way as the AI J

Thank you for 1) taking the time to do this, and 2) making the results easy to understand. It looks to me like all the contentious noise about the T-34 vs German tanks is just that - sound and fury signifying nothing. As in earlier versions, tactics must be adjusted somewhat to adapt, but there's nothing wrong with v7.

These results do not surprise me much. The performance of T-34 vs Pz3 is not far off in v7, except that APCR ammunition plays too large a role in the early battles of summer-fall 1941. This "APCR problem" was insignificant before the armor reform, but has been uncovered by it, as have been other previously hidden, apparent weaknesses in the game. I expect such problems will continue to crop up because of what in my opinion, as a software developer, (and not as a WW2 freak) is poor judgement on part of the Matrix staff of undertaking such sweeping changes of a product at such a late stage in its development.

The issues are not with "software development"...the only changes where made to the database.

What are these "hidden, apparent weaknesses" that are suddenly cropping up (that have not been talked about before...no one has every said the game is perfect... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

So we are getting close to the heart of the matter anyway...the problem revolves around APCR, does it?

Do you think the stats of APCR are wrong, or that too much is present or is all that is needed is a change of dates of some units???

Hardly sounds like a problem that requires throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Sounds like all the noise that came out when the infantry combat routine was adjusted (v5.2?). My first thought at that time was 'WTF have they done to *my* game', but now (IMHO) I think it was one of the best improvements in SPWAW; I have a feeling the new armor/pen changes will also gain acceptance. Warrior hit the nail on the head: just adjust your tactics.

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
[QB]Do you think the stats of APCR are wrong, or that too much is present or is all that is needed is a change of dates of some units???[QB]

---

Paul, you are the final expert. If you consider the APCR stats correct, leave it. (I would think that early in the war the Germans would have more APCR, etc... just like they had more of everything else.)

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
The issues are not with "software development"...the only changes where made to the database.
What are these "hidden, apparent weaknesses" that are suddenly cropping up (that have not been talked about before...no one has every said the game is perfect... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
So we are getting close to the heart of the matter anyway...the problem revolves around APCR, does it?
Do you think the stats of APCR are wrong, or that too much is present or is all that is needed is a change of dates of some units???
Hardly sounds like a problem that requires throwing the baby out with the bath water...

---

I have answered most of these questions before, even repeatedly. I have identified a number of realism problems that I just don't have the stomach to go through yet again.
Once again, Vebber, you seem to have a problem with seeing the big picture. APCR or any aspect of it is not THE problem (although it could do with a general going over). THE problem, like I have said again and again, is that such sweeping changes (especially if they are simplistic as these are, with no derogatory meaning intended) have a tendency to unbalance a sensitive simulation that is not based on 100% exact data and operations, and this is what has happened. The gain of the armor reform, more accurate armor ratings, is also quite dubious, but I won't go deeper into that without better knowledge.

And a database is part of a software system, and changes to a database are software changes that general lessons of software development apply to, especially in this case, as the correctness of the database is very important to the intended performance of the system.

I think these test results are important enough to bump up.

Another bump.

There are several concerns from the forum that the higher rate of fire/fire control/accuracy of the German may makes it more deadly against Soviet on a moving battlefield, so here is another test.

Setup: 10 T 34m40 sets up against 10 Pz IIIG in a spaced line, so each could only fire at a single target. Country training and characteristics off. Morale, experience and armor command rating sets to 100 for each side.

The T 34 moves 10 hexes, then fire at the the IIIG with all its shots (3). If it score a kill, it will stop shooting. I repeat this 5 time to gives a maximum # of 150 shots:

Shots taken: 129
Shots miss: 82 (64%)
Shots hits: 47 (36%)
Kills: 16
Kills/hit: 34%

The IIIG moves 10 hexes, then fire at the T 34 with all its shots (5). I repeat this 3 time to gives a maximum # of 150 shots:

Shots taken: 123
Shots miss: 29 (24%)
Shots hits: 94 (76%)
Kills: 11
Kills/hit: 12%

This test shows that due to its higher firing rate/and accuracy, 30 IIIG is almost equivalent to 50 T 34. Historically correct? I'll lets wiser heads determine this.

lnp4668: How are you coming up with 30 to 50? The T34 destroyed MORE PZIIIs than the PZIII destroyed, not less. If you're comparing this to cost, that makes things immensely more complicated, and is not even worth the effort. The KTiger can probably destroy T34/76s at a 20-to-1 rate, but you aren't going to see KTiger cost at 20X the T34/76.

Originally posted by Charles_22:
lnp4668: How are you coming up with 30 to 50? The T34 destroyed MORE PZIIIs than the PZIII destroyed, not less. If you're comparing this to cost, that makes things immensely more complicated, and is not even worth the effort. The KTiger can probably destroy T34/76s at a 20-to-1 rate, but you aren't going to see KTiger cost at 20X the T34/76.

---

Charles_22,
I repeat the scenario 5 times for the T 34, since they only able to shoot 3 shots after moving 10 hexes so the total # of shots will be 150. 10 T 34/scenario x 5 = 50 T 34.

I only repeat the scenario 3 times for the IIIG since they are able to shoot 5 shots after moving 10 hexes so the total # of shots will be 150. 10 IIIG/ scenario x 3 = 30 IIIG.

My intention is to see in the same # of shots fire, what would be the # of kills per side. There have to be a common denominator in order to compare the results. I planned to repeat the experiment 2 more times for the IIIG to gets the total # of tanks involve to be 50 per side.

After repeating the scenario 2 more time, so that a total of 50 IIIG have a chance to shoot a maximum of 250 possible shots:

Shot taken: 211
Shot miss: 50 (20%)
Shot hit: 161 (80%)
Kills: 20
Kills/hit: 12%

If you notice from the % of shot hit from the 3 repeats above (76%) and the total from 5 repeats (80%) The chances to hit stay fairly constant. And the Kills/hit ratio is exactly the same at 12%. This shows that the spwaw engine is very consistent in portraying hit and kill probablility.

Anything else, I left it up to you guys <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: lnp4668 ]</p>

Bud, thanks sooo much for your efforts at this. It is much appreciated by many of us.

If APCR is in question, how about a test situation with the PzIII's having nothing BUT APCR? This could get us some interesting numbers and help us decide if APCR is the issue or not. I am in line with Paul's thinking: is it APCR or not? I don't think it's the engine or system.

Of course, you'd have to alter the OOBs or the individual units to get that many APCR rounds available.

Originally posted by richmonder:
Bud, thanks sooo much for your efforts at this. It is much appreciated by many of us.

If APCR is in question, how about a test situation with the PzIII's having nothing BUT APCR? This could get us some interesting numbers and help us decide if APCR is the issue or not. I am in line with Paul's thinking: is it APCR or not? I don't think it's the engine or system.

Of course, you'd have to alter the OOBs or the individual units to get that many APCR rounds available.

---

Actually the Pz IIIG have no APCR rounds available. That is why the result is so surprising. I planned to do this with the IIIH which have APCR, and I feel this will skew the result even further.

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

You are killing T34's with frontal hits with ap ammo only, no apcr. If the T-34's are doing kills it's because they are fighting against the less well armoured PzIII with 50L42... and it is obvius, for me, that the result is a fraud.
You are testing to prove your point. I played and tested, results astonished me and then I posted. It is a great difference.

EDITED: I forget to say you are killing T-34 with frontal hits with AP ammo only, AT 500 METERS!
What could you do with APCR, then?

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

I've reached the "hmmmmm" stage today.

Tried a couple 'battlfield' tests today pitting several platoons of German mediums (1 Pz-38, 1 pz-IIIg and 1 pz-IIIh) against three platoons of T-34m41 and 1 platoon of KV-1m40. reletively equal numbers.

some eyebrow raising results.

The AI presented me with a convenient number of flank shots which i obliged him with. The result was mayham for the Soviet....1/2 the T-34's were destroyed with ease at ranges of 550 - 700 yards.....using standard AP.

at the 500yard APCR mark....same results vs frontal turret penetrations.

the KV's were tougher but APCR dealt with them easily at 500 yards except for the front glasis.

Replayed it again with AI controlling German and me attempting to minimize flank exposure. Same results. the mark III's even without APCR, when combining the increased pen stats of their guns along with the reduced Soviet armor quality factor, makes the T-34 hardly frightening at all.

I'm starting to wonder if maybe this "tweak" was a little bit much now. If just the gun stats had been tweaked, or just the Russian armor quality, maybe it would'nt cause so many strained eyebrow muscle incidents.

Together? starting to wonder. Most combat oriented documentation strongly suggests engaging T-34's on the flanks, at close range, using APCR, and trying to get as perpedicular a shot as possible (like firing on a T34 from a height advantage to minimize slope)

In WAW? as the Terminator would say....no problemo. Dont even need APCR or close range. (we should remember that for the most part, before the later part of the war when big high velocity guns changed the rules somewhat), the "standard" battle range for tanks was considered around 500 yards more or less. If a tank can compete well in this area, then there should by virtue of that, be no great panic in terms of having to either upgrade a tank or replace it with a newer one.

I am not seeing any great worry caused by the T-34 when matching up in equal number situations (a situation that rarely happened in 41 and 42, fort for the Germans)

True, the front remains tougher, but frontal turret hits help compensate for this. Get a side shot, even with some angle thrown in and again, 'no problemo'

Add APCR.....definately no problemo. Limited ammo preference helps here but not enough which makes me think that ammo levels really ar'nt the issue, a German tank with between 1-5 rounds of APCR in a magazine containing 60+ rounds is not outragious. I think the culprit lies in the two earlier tweaks mentioned.

Its looking to be a bit much i have to admit. In my earlier 'proving ground tests' i had'nt realized just how flank sensitive the T-34 in particular had become....so much to the effect that at least in the game, it makes the T-34 worse off than a Panther when engaged on the sides. Many will no doubt say "Duh" to me, its a standard and desireable tactic to engage a tank's more senstive sides, but the point i'm making is that, in WAW at least, the German player wont even have to try to set up the other components of the favorable tactical situation, dont need to get close, dont need APCR even, just hit the tank from as far as 700 yards on the side and score a dead T-34.

It feels too easy.

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

lnp4668:

Charles_22,
I repeat the scenario 5 times for the T 34, since they only able to shoot 3 shots after moving 10 hexes so the total # of shots will be 150. 10 T 34/scenario x 5 = 50 T 34.

I only repeat the scenario 3 times for the IIIG since they are able to shoot 5 shots after moving 10 hexes so the total # of shots will be 150. 10 IIIG/ scenario x 3 = 30 IIIG.

---

Oh.

You've left out quite a lot of data though. Are you talking frontal hits only, and what is the range?

2 quick things.

First, the continued information is appreciated, I do read it and contrary to what some may think am working, actually to try to compromise.

Second, combat reports are important, but notoriously contradictory and based on assumptions that are not reported. One can find combat reports to support a 75mm/43 being effective against T-34 from 1000-1600m. In some cases they refer to the range at which ALL shots will penetrate, and other times cases beyond which NO shells penetrate. Other issues play as well (not the least of which is the influence at tiems of a unit that just got its clock cleaned being perhaps overzealous to show it was "beyond its control....)

I'm not indicting combat reports, just that they have to put in context. A combination of combat reports and technical analysis went into the data used. But I'm certainly not one to accept it blindly, just I am not one to accept combat reports alone.

I've emailed Lorrin with some questions and wil let you know what xomes of it.

Remember to use the alt-l combat logging to ease data taking, and keep experimenting and reporting what you find.

My take is that T-34s were not as invulnerable as some would like to think, combat losses show SOMETHING killed them...and in significant numbers. Whether a PzIIIg should have a 12% kill rate or a 16 or a 7 nobody knows for sure...But I am investigating the sitution and will report back what comes of it. But I will not be done until after Christmas.

I'll say again that I appreciate that the tone has changed to one of communicating meaninful information. That is how we will get things to improve. It happend with the infantry combat when v5.3 was too much for most people (though some liked it) and we reached compromise in 6.1.

The same is going to happen hear if we keep the tone civil and the lines of communication open.

As usual that was not so quick...Oh well...

Merry Christmas.

Originally posted by Charles_22:
lnp4668:

Oh.

You've left out quite a lot of data though. Are you talking frontal hits only, and what is the range?

---

Sorry, yes, they are all frontal hits, it is too much work trying the same with flank shots and most tankers would like to put the front against the enemy anyway <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . Also the firing range is 10. This is to compare the results with the IIIH's APCR capability.

Test of IIIH vs m40 with same settings
140 shots taken out of possible 150 shots by m40 against IIIH:
Miss: 86 (61%)
Hit: 54 (39%)
Kill: 7
Kill/hit: 13%

* Notice the to hit % (39%) is very similar as that against the IIIG (37%) since both are same size. However, the kill/hit is reduced to 13% from the 34% against the IIIG due to the needs for turret hit.

111 shots taken out of possible 150 shots by IIIH against m40:
Miss: 30 (27%)
Hit: 81 (73%)
Kill: 17
Kill/hit: 21%

* Once again the gun by the IIIH is the same as the IIIG, so the hit % is close (73% vs 76%). However, the addition of APCR, increase the kill ratio from 12% to 21%

185 out of 250 possible shots taken by IIIH vs m40 to represent total of 50 tanks:
Miss: 47 (25%)
Hit: 138 (75%)
Kill: 28
Kill/hit: 20%

* Once again the hit % is quite similar to that of the IIIG (75% vs 76%). The kill ratio remain at 20%

The variation may have been due to statistical drift or my lousy record keeping. Thanks Paul for the alt-l function. So where will the log file dump to?