Can someone explain this

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Can someone explain this

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> Can someone explain this

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 12:09:33 AM

EisenHammer

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

How did I loss 1/3rd of my afv?

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 2:28:23 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Guessing a lot of those were possibly light tanks. You attacked two corps that had artillery support. (574 guns is a fair amount).

(in reply to EisenHammer)

Post #: 2

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 2:31:32 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

That's what happens when you attack two corps with three panzer divisions. You are lucky to have won the battle at all seeing as you were outnumbered in men and guns.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 3

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 5:08:37 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

That's what happens when you attack two corps with three panzer divisions. You are lucky to have won the battle at all seeing as you were outnumbered in men and guns.

and had no air support

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 4

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 5:17:11 AM

EisenHammer

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

I had CV of 4.8 to 1 in clear terrain with a fort level of 1, something is not right about this battle.
I should not loss 99 AFV in this fight. For one thing the Germans should had call off the attack way before losing 99 AFVs.

It was the death ride of the 3rd Panzer corps.

And also the Soviets had no air support.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 5

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 6:02:32 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

EH

We could not see the displayed CV ratio before the attack, but now we know it was 4.8 to 1.

So
In Summer 41 I would not hesitate to hasty a couple of divisions in a fort with that displayed ratio even if I did not have any engineer support (although I can't imagine that since I will always put an engineer into each PzDiv just to handle forts)
HOWEVER, I would do a deliberate attack with three mobile divisions against a couple of corps in 42 if they had no fort and I would feel it was a gamble if I tried a deliberate with no engineers and no infantry against a force that strong in a fort (even a level 1).

But then I am a chicken about that sort of thing; I have seen too many of my carefully protected, precious panzers ruined attacking dug-in AT guns without infantry and engineer support.

Bad die rolls happen, but you can minimize the effects with a balanced force. My advice for the future is to attach an engineer to each PzDiv and to include a MotDiv in any stack attacking a rifle corps suppoorted by tanks and artillery. Also you should display either experience or morale as a soft factor (and switch between them to check out the opposition when you are looking at risky attacks). In 41 you can get away with almost anything, but by 42 you have to treat Ivan with respect (especially with rifle corps). After the blizzard, some of those units can have quite respectable morale and experience (and displaying the soft factors can give you powerful clues about where those particular units are located).

< Message edited by pompack -- 5/24/2011 6:04:49 AM >

(in reply to EisenHammer)

Post #: 6

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 6:17:16 AM

jzardos

Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline

IMO, this is exactly part of what is wrong with WitE combat results. In 1942 three experienced German Panzer div would have rolled-up those 2 Corps. For people that haven't read what I'm reading now about the east front is that in 42 a Sov Corps was about equivalent to a German div. Throw in were talking about Panzer units (elite) and it's gets even uglier for the Soviets.

The reason why combat in WitE can seem so bogus in 1942 is the loses don't reflect the key advantages of the Germans: superior tactics, superior exp, superior leadership, and superior command and control. There was a wide gap in 42 between the top German units (SS, Panzers, Mot, etc) and the Soviet rifle/cav units.

So explain it how you want.. it just don't fly with history.

No way in hell given the terrain and fort level that the panzers units would have lost more. Yeah so they had arty, but once again WitE has not done research on how effective Sov arty was in 1942. Only really the Americans mastered the use of arty in WW2 to it's maximum effect on the battlefield. Sure Soviets had a ton of it later in the war (late 43 and onward).. but not as much as they can get in 42 in WitE.

So fix arty too while they're fix the loses taken by exp units loses. I know for a FACT there are testers that feel that loses by experience German units are too HIGH. Maybe someday the devs will wake up and do something about it.

Oh one last bit of fiction for those people that think the result makes sense. Ask yourselves how the heck those Soviet Corps were able to retreat so effectively and only lose 29 of the 500+ guns (sure mortars can be withdrawn easier)? Yes, retreat against Panzer divisions and only losing 5% of guns? Lol, please. Fix the guns lost during routes and retreats would go a long way to help reducing Soviet arty to more realistic levels in 42 and onward.

< Message edited by jzardos -- 5/24/2011 6:27:16 AM >

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 7

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 6:37:46 AM

jzardos

Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline

Here's a little interesting gift WitE left me. Some will try and suggested my units didn't have ammo or something else to explain it.. nope.. plenty-o-ammo.

The 131 ID was a little fatigued, I think.

Overall guess my units here we just having a bad day..it's that hidden WitE mod for 'bad' day.

Or maybe I'm not really fighting Soviets but rather British commandos just dressed up like a ragged understrength Soviet rifle div.

Hate it when that happens to me. Not too much to try and fix here..just lower the final loses high experience and high morale troops incur ..just way too high. Not asking for an overhaul of the combat system. I actually think most of it is really cool.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jzardos -- 5/24/2011 6:42:05 AM >

(in reply to jzardos)

Post #: 8

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 6:58:16 AM

EisenHammer

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
Bad die rolls happen,

I guess the 3rd panzer corps got ambush.
Thats the way I'm going to look at it for now.
But I'm starting to think that the randomness of the battles or dice rolls are getting a little bit to random.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 9

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 7:00:53 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

How did I loss 1/3rd of my afv?

Any chance to have a save prior the combat?

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to EisenHammer)

Post #: 10

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 7:04:18 AM

EisenHammer

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

How did I loss 1/3rd of my afv?

Any chance to have a save prior the combat?

Yes sir... I do

where do I send it.

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 11

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 7:16:53 AM

mantrain

Posts: 444
Joined: 9/3/2008
Status: offline

Hello Eisenhammer. Can you please tell me how you get those graphics/lettering on the map? Seems like a graphic upgrade.

(in reply to EisenHammer)

Post #: 12

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 7:28:49 AM

EisenHammer

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

sure i got them from Scenario Design and Modding part of the forums, (REL) Place Names Mod by Redmarkus.
I try to link it but it was not working.

(in reply to mantrain)

Post #: 13

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 7:31:17 AM

EisenHammer

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline

@ Helpless
file sent

(in reply to EisenHammer)

Post #: 14

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 8:18:38 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

I think the reason is that you strike at the "just merged" Corps which has 180% of TOE with tons of ready(!) guns(AT).

But even with such amount most of the AFV losses are damaged AFV, which can be recovered if you have enough of support.

I've tried to run it several times and results were very variable form 18 damaged German AFVs to 100 AFV. To emulate your results I had switch GS off (otherwise Axis losses were much lower), but Soviet always had some GS presence. The biggest toll I've got was:

Destroyed:
Panzer IIf destroyed by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle - range 125
Panzer IIIj L/60 destroyed by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle - range 125
Panzer IIc destroyed by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle - range 125
Panzer IIIe destroyed by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle - range 125
Panzer IIIj L/60 destroyed by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle - range 125
Panzer IIc destroyed by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle - range 125
Panzer IIIj L/60 destroyed by Flamethrower
Panzer IIIj L/60 destroyed by Flamethrower
Panzer IIIj L/42 destroyed by Flamethrower
Panzer IIIe destroyed by Flamethrower

Damaged:
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IVf damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IVf damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIc damaged by 76.2mm F-22-USV Field Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 76.2mm F-22-USV Field Gun
Panzer IIc damaged by 76.2mm F-22-USV Field Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 122mm A19 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IVf damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IVf damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIc damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIc damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IVf damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIc damaged by 45mm M37/38 Gun
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIg damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIg damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIg damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIg damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIc damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIc damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIc damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIc damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIc damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIc damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIg damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzerjager I damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IVf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIIj L/42 damaged by 152mm ML-20 Gun-Howitzer
Panzer IIf damaged by 12.7mm DShK AAMG
Panzer IIc damaged by 12.7mm DShK AAMG
Panzer IIIe damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIj L/60 damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIIg damaged by 14.5mm PTRD AT-Rifle
Panzer IIf damaged by 76mm M27/39 Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 76mm M27/39 Gun
Panzer IIc damaged by 76mm M27/39 Gun
Panzer IIf damaged by 12.7mm DShK AAMG
Panzer IIc damaged by 12.7mm DShK AAMG
Panzer IIc damaged by 12.7mm DShK AAMG

I'll take a look what could be done to avoid such monster units at the merge.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Helpless -- 5/24/2011 8:19:54 AM >

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to EisenHammer)

Post #: 15

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 8:20:00 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

Andy/Joel, can you please move it to Tech Forum section. Thanks.

< Message edited by Helpless -- 5/24/2011 8:44:30 AM >

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 16

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 8:38:04 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

700+ AT rifles

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 17

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 8:39:33 AM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

Another victory for the Soviet sniper corps?

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 18

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 1:24:44 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I don't see AT rifles being that effective at all against PZ-III's, especially the J model. A 45mm AT gun should have a really hard time punching out a J let alone a AT rifle.

(in reply to Zebedee)

Post #: 19

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 1:59:34 PM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I don't see AT rifles being that effective at all against PZ-III's, especially the J model. A 45mm AT gun should have a really hard time punching out a J let alone a AT rifle.

That's right, ATRs were very ineffective and used mostly against armored cars. Obviously very high amount is skewing the results and most of the losses are damaged - will be recovered shortly, but it was bit surprising for me as well.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 20

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 3:19:32 PM

johnnyvagas

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/28/2011
Status: offline

Wow! How do I get my Russian infantry divisions TO&Es fleshed out with more antitank rifles!

Frankly the 45mm Pak wasn't particularly effective against the more up-armored PzKwIIIs of late 41 and 1942. For obvious reasons the Red Army was pretty careful about collecting stats on their various antitank assets in terms of what was killing what. The 45mm Pak doesn�t rank very high as a Panzer Killer.

And as already stated by Helpless and Klydon -- the 14.5mm ATR PTRD -- for all the propaganda surrounding the weapon (see great movies such as Sergey Bondarchuk's "They Fought for their Motherland") -- was not particularly effective at killing Panzers. This according to the Red Army's own studies concerning antitank warfare on the Eastern Front. Much of this sort of material has only become available in the last few years by archival research from the likes of Mikhail Svirin et al. What the PTRD was effective at was generating mobility kills and getting Panzer Crews to button up. In that sense it�s presence on the battlefield, particularly when available in large numbers, would have reduced the combat efficiency of German tank crews.

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 21

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 3:34:14 PM

johnnyvagas

Posts: 50
Joined: 3/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

That's what happens when you attack two corps with three panzer divisions. You are lucky to have won the battle at all seeing as you were outnumbered in men and guns.

I wouldn�t even have expected these sorts of AFV losses against the tank killing defenses established by the Red Army around the haunches of the Kursk Salient. See N.Zetterling on the sorts of tank losses the Germans were actually experiencing during Kursk. The above cited game attack couldn�t really be considered Kursk by any stretch of the imagination in terms of the level of preparedness of these two Soviet Corps (i.e. they are in a Zero level fort). Open Steppe...unprepared defense...no reserves...hmmmm...

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 22

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 6:01:49 PM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

I don't see AT rifles being that effective at all against PZ-III's, especially the J model. A 45mm AT gun should have a really hard time punching out a J let alone a AT rifle.

That's right, ATRs were very ineffective and used mostly against armored cars. Obviously very high amount is skewing the results and most of the losses are damaged - will be recovered shortly, but it was bit surprising for me as well.

Should Soviet tank divisions suffer a similar casualty rate ( about 1/3rd to 1/2 ) when attacked and forced to retreat, in 1941?

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 23

RE: Can someone explain this - 5/24/2011 6:03:27 PM

jzardos

Posts: 662
Joined: 3/15/2011
Status: offline

Nice work Helpless in your analysis. This is the type of work that will help improve historical battlefield realism.

This gives me hope for less skewed combat results. I agree that combat results need some variance, but they must stay within historical possibilities on some level. Otherwise, you get many of these odd results stacked against you...it could be difficult to recover from. Especially axis forces losing armor.

(in reply to johnnyvagas)

Post #: 24