Matrix Games Forums

Hi. The debates on the best general mentioned comparison of the sides' weapons which inspired me to start a new topic: let us share facts on German and Soviet (Allied) weaponry that are probably not widely known.

I begin with tanks. Of course T-34 was superior in any aspect intil arrival of up-gunned Pz IV's in spring 1942. Fast, maneuverable, welded of good quality steel, its engine used low-octane fuel which was less dangerous in the sense of fire. Its weak points are less known. They are: bearing basis of the turret was not strong enough, so heavy shelling often tore it away. Then, frontal location of driver's hatch was a good aiming spot for enemy gunners. The next T-34's drawback was an organic one: relatively small turret that could not house a larger gun, so T-34 was not up-gunned as easily as Wehrmacht's Pz III and IV. In spring of 1942 Soviet intelligence reported almost exact characteristics of newly designed German Tiger tank, and at that moment the Soviet ministry of armaments (Gen. Vannikov) must have been alerted with T-34's ability to cope with it. Moreover, when in August 1942 first Tiger was captured in good quality and tested, it indicated that T-34's 76-mm main gun L-41 could penetrate only Tiger's side at range 300-400 m just with sabot ammo. I think the following year delay with T-34's up-gunning was the ministy's unforgivable fault since at Kursk the Soviet tanks' firepower proved hardly adequate which cost extra hundreds AFV's and tens thousands men lost. German vs Soviet AFV losses 4.43-8.43 - 1:5.7 (www.achtungpanzer.com). Soviet engineers were trying to adapt former flak 85-mm gun L-53 to T-34's turret and concluded at last that the turret was to be redesigned. It took that much time whereas in 1942 there existed another project - accomodate a smaller but already well proven 76-mm L-51 (ZIS-3) gun which could penetrate Tiger's front with sabot at close range. It would be a great "interim" solution, but was rejected for some vague political reasons. So T-34-85 was introduced in large numbers in early 1944 which was immediately reflected by stats: the same losses ratio became 1:1.4.
Some authors consider T-34-85 as the best WW2 medium tank, I think it is the point for additional discussion. Being compared to PzVg (Panther) it is visibly inferior both in firepower and armor while a bit faster, lighter and much cheaper in production. The Panther very often developed problems with unreliable engine and suspension. Guderian used to complain that Panther "very easily sets on fire". So IMHO in practical combat sense the question of the best tank is still open.

All the Soviet AFV's had two common weaknesses: firstly poor (compared to the enemy) accuracy of their main guns which was due to low quality equipment for high-precision reboring of barrels at Soviet factories and, secondly, bad optical devices (esp. gunsights). These points gave German AFV's obvious advantages while fighting at long ranges.

In what concerns heavy tanks the Stalin IS-2 had superb armor and was armed with 122-mm L-43 gun with high kinetic energy and rather medium accuracy. However its heavy AP shells could not penetrate Tiger II's front armor while Tiger II could do it to IS-2 (Germans reported that no hits at all have ever penetrated Tiger II's front in practice). High caliber of IS-2's gun caused it to house only 28 shells and loading was separate, this resulted in low rate of fire: 2-3 shots per minute. So IS-2 could respond with unique shot to about 3 shots of Tiger II. I think this choice of gun for the heavy tank was also a mistake, IS-2 is not an assault gun like SU-152, it must effectively fight enemy armor. That moment Soviets had a good 100-mm L-60 long-barreled gun close to German L-71, Allied Pershing's L-50 and Firefly's 17 Pdr guns which IMHO would be better in this case.
I must add as well that Tiger II also suffered from numerous problems: very high fuel consumption and therefore insufficient range, poor mobility, again unreliable suspension and tracks.

To be continued on aircraft.

Barbos

I think the germans concentrated mostly on the 'use' of armor rather than the specifics up untill '41 then they realised that more effort should go into design for the battlefield. After this time the feudal nazi system hampered rather than helped and it is a wonder the germans managed to get as many new designs(and good ones) out as they did. Given better conditions(less confusion and power play) i'm sure the Germans would have produced superlative tanks with no match in the world. I have great respect for their technical abillities but rather less for their social common sense.(at the time)

(even now there is only one tank that pretty much equals the US M1 in 'all areas'. The Leopard 2. The only reason the M1 dos'nt use the 120mm german gun is politics)

Nick

PS The Maus though was a mistake. Slow moving multigunned land battleships have no place in a world with airpower.

Given better conditions, Russians would crack German superlative tanks in the world

While the stats are nice to know, one thing you have to realize about the later parts of the war, particularly when the 1.4-to-1.0 comparison was made, is that the Germans probably had far less opposition on the front at that time. SO while it may look like the Germans did better with a 5.7-to-1.0 ratio to a 1.4-to-1.0 ratio it's not necessarily the case.

For example, when the AOE type testing was done for T34/85 vs. Tiger, the Tiger won 2.9-to-1, however, when that ratio was applied and Tigers faced 3-to-1 odds, the Tigers ratio was only 1.5-to-1. The 1.5-to-1 odds look worse, but when you're facing 3 times the amount of opponents of the first test it don't look so bad.

So, the question is what is more effective. 3 cheaper faster reliable but weaker tanks, or one expensive slow nonreliable but stronger? Thing that is IMHO not yet implemented in wargames, is reliableness of tanks, complexity of their repairing etc.
I think that T-34/85 would won contest if all above factors would be taken.

Originally posted by Mist:
Thing that is IMHO not yet implemented in wargames, is reliableness of tanks, complexity of their repairing etc.

We argued for a durability factor, but going through all the code adding tests of this new variable, and the question of historical accuracy, scared off Arnuad, so it was never implemented.

I think that T-34/85 would won contest if all above factors would be taken.

I'll take 4, or 5 T34/85 tanks over a lone Tiger anyday. More importantly though, I think WiR was simply designed with massive numbers in mind (GG's mind that is). Numerical superiority goes a long way in the combat formulas. This could be seen in the old code for air combat, until Arnaud changed it.

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Originally posted by Mist:
Given better conditions, Russians would crack German superlative tanks in the world

Mist

Yes the soviets would say that, they have 3 tanks for every german one. But if i was in a tank(bad situation at start)and the general odds were even i would rather be in a german tank with better armor, better optics and better trained crew than risk being in one of the statistical odds based 'losses' on the soviet side. If my tank is 50% less likely to die then i want to be in that tank.

The soviets after the war built many tanks but only the t-80 comes close to the Leopard 2. Soviets(russians) build VERY good fighter planes but tanks only 'good'. In Australia our soldiers are great in jungle and trenches but history says that is all. National character is important. Look at Vietnam, US soldiers were not so good in jungle and even decorated soldier 'Hackworth' went to australians for tactics on jungle fighting. Each peoples have their strength. The Germans has always been armour(exploitation) and tactics.

Nick

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


Mist

Yes the soviets would say that, they have 3 tanks for every german one. But if i was in a tank(bad situation at start)and the general odds were even i would rather be in a german tank with better armor, better optics and better trained crew than risk being in one of the statistical odds based 'losses' on the soviet side. If my tank is 50% less likely to die then i want to be in that tank.
Nick

Nick!
Being in tank with lesser chances to be killed in 1:1 engagement does not mean higher chances to survive the war. Realy. You can kill 10 T34's with your KingsTiger but it would not matter if 11th would hit your tank in ammo storage once. So, I would prefer to be in one of 400 T34's which are engaging 10 KingsTigers in non-plain terrain. Guess percentage of killed on both sides?

[ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

We should not forget that since 1943 the Soviet tanks were mostly on offensive moving in open space versus dug-in enemy AVF's which also affected stats. In 1944 Soviet Armored Forces HQ issued special regulations that prohibited Soviet tankers dueling against German tanks on long ranges, while in close combat high speed and maneuverability gave T-34 good chances.
In 1942-43 early American M4A1 Sherman tank was inferior to German PzIV and T-34 in almost all aspects, the late version M4A3 proved to be hardly a match to T-34-85 in Korea although used by seasoned USMC veterans against green North Koreans. Then T-34-85 was beaten just by newer Pershing heavy tank and Superbazooka.

About planes: indeed the Soviet fighter planes were inferior (but not as dramatically as usually depicted in western sources) to German counterparts until arrival of La-7 and up-engined Yak-3 in 1944. Their construction was wooden (vs metal enemies), covered by painted canvas which deteriorated aerodynamics. Engines were mediocre, with poor high altitude characteristics, especially vs Bf-109. Btw this is why German top aces preferred 109 to FW-190. The Soviet fighter planes were well suited for cheap, low material consuming mass production of the war time. The main goal of the Red Air Forces was to support ground troops and just secondly fight enemy aircraft.

I think that IL-2 Shturmovik is underestimated in WIR. It was faster and more maneuverable than Stuka, could carry 600 kg bombs and eight 82-mm HE or HEAT rockets. Its armament in 1942: 12.7-mm defensive MG, 2 7.7-mm MGs and 2 23-mm VYa cannons. The powerful anti-armor Vya cannons are known to be not ordinary 20-mm ones, their muzzle velocity 905 m/sec allowed to penetrate 50 mm steel. Awful recoil of Vya's made it impossible to install them to fighter planes with slighter airframe. So IL-2 may be treated as a tank-killer plane rather than dive-bomber.
By the way: SB-2 also was no dive bomber (as it is in WIR now), just a level one. During the Finnish war it was tested and showed that its airframe could not sustain tensions while recovering from dive.

I have strong doubts about availability date for FW-190 in WIR. Turn to history: the first Luftwaffe unit converted to FW-190 (early two cannon model) was JG-26 (late July 1941, France) which by the end of 1941 had a few dozens of new planes. Later in 1942 production of FW-190 rose pretty slowly, so it did not become a common plane until 1943. First year if was used at the West against great British Spitfires that proved slightly superior to Bf-109G, so on the Russian front Germans used only Bf-109. In Russia FW-190A first appeared with JG-51 in September 1942 near Ljuban. Later JG-51 was converted back to Bf-109 due to shortages of FW-190. It entered combat in large numbers just in late spring of 1943. I think the game should model the situation such as necessity to keep best fighter models at the West against superior Allied aircraft and low production. So I made FW-190 available in July 1942, when the version A4 was put into really mass production.

In fact production of Do-217 and He-177 was 10-12 times lower than that of Ju-88 due to shortages of materials and problems with He-177 engines, so in WIR I put their cost to 99 and production 8 and 5 appropriately.

By fall of 1944 all the Stuka groups were converted to FW-190f/g (except Rudel's SG-2), producion of Ju-87 was stopped, so I created FW-190G (fall of 1944, bombload increased up to 1800 kg) and made Ju-87G to upgrade to FW-190g.

Originally posted by Mist:

Nick!
Being in tank with lesser chances to be killed in 1:1 engagement does not mean higher chances to survive the war. Realy. You can kill 10 T34's with your KingsTiger but it would not matter if 11th would hit your tank in ammo storage once. So, I would prefer to be in one of 400 T34's which are engaging 10 KingsTigers in non-plain terrain. Guess percentage of killed on both sides?

[ June 03, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Mist

Ok, I conceed. I'm talking of dreamland where the tank battles are always even in numbers.

Nick

Originally posted by Charles_22:
While the stats are nice to know, one thing you have to realize about the later parts of the war, particularly when the 1.4-to-1.0 comparison was made, is that the Germans probably had far less opposition on the front at that time. SO while it may look like the Germans did better with a 5.7-to-1.0 ratio to a 1.4-to-1.0 ratio it's not necessarily the case.

For example, when the AOE type testing was done for T34/85 vs. Tiger, the Tiger won 2.9-to-1, however, when that ratio was applied and Tigers faced 3-to-1 odds, the Tigers ratio was only 1.5-to-1. The 1.5-to-1 odds look worse, but when you're facing 3 times the amount of opponents of the first test it don't look so bad.

The impact of air superiority over the battlefield was significant in the effect on the ratio of tanks lost for either side. Accounts of a few Panthers or Tiger IIs knocking out dozens of Soviet tanks were not rare. German tankers were less impressed by the hordes of Soviet tanks manned by inexperienced crews than they were by the eventual Soviet domination of the skies above them.