RE: Turrets

RE: Turrets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design

Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 5:35:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmlima To be quite honest , it's almost... ridiculous , if I dare say so, after seeing so much resistance to any change to the supply system seeing a suggestion for towers in TOAW... what's next, smoke dispensers? Mind you, smoke was a pretty relevant thing also. [>:] Actually, there is a flag for "smoke". That's all I'm really asking for: one for turrets - there's a clear need. Right now, un-turreted tanks are fully equivalent to turreted ones. And you've ridiculously mischaracterized my position on supply.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 5:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vahauser I am a highly-skilled expert Steel Panthers player (been playing for 12+ years). I almost always choose turreted AFVs instead of non-turreted AFVs when given a choice. Turreted AFVs: 1) almost always carry more ammunition. This is extremely important tactically, but is not handled by TOAW III. 2) almost always have a higher rate of fire. This is supremely important tactically, but is not handled by TOAW III. 3) do not have to turn the whole vehicle to face the enemy being engaged. This is important in a variety of tactical situations, but not as important as points #1 and #2 above. Non-turreted AFVs: 1) usually have a smaller target size. This is useful when trying to set up ambushes. 2) often have better armor protection. This is countered by the fact that non-turreted AFVs can be often outmaneuvered to gain flank shots. [But if the non-turreted AFV can keep its flanks protected, such as fighting in occluded terrain where trees and buildings, etc., can be used to protect the flanks, the the non-turreted AFV has an advantage.] When do I use non-turreted AFVs? Non-turreted AFVs are best when fighting in occluded terrain (such as woods and cities). In these cases, a handful of non-turreted AFVs leading the advance (with the turreted AFVs following behind in overwatch positions) is often the best way to attack. Historically (talking WW2 here), turreted AFVs were best suited to independent combat operations in relatively open terrain. Non-turreted AFVs were historically best suited to dependent combat operations (usually infantry support), especially in relatively occluded terrain. The main historical advantage of non-turreted AFVs is that they were less complicated and less expensive and less time-consuming to build. Thus, wealthy nations with enormous industrial potential, like the USA in WW2 could afford to build turreted AFVs almost exclusively. However, many other nations could not afford that luxury. In open ground, I'll take turreted AFVs every time. In occluded terrain I like to have some non-turreted AFVs handy. Seems like a fairly significant factor to me.

a white rabbit -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 6:22:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmlima To be quite honest , it's almost... ridiculous , if I dare say so, after seeing so much resistance to any change to the supply system seeing a suggestion for towers in TOAW... what's next, smoke dispensers? Mind you, smoke was a pretty relevant thing also. [>:] ..there's a smoke flag, used by a Brazilian ? unit, i still can't get the d*mned thing to to have any noticable effect.. ..give it to all black-powder scens and we start to really cook with gas..

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 8:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmlima quote: ORIGINAL: rhinobones Almost ridiculous . . . almost? No, it is ridiculous. This is the kind of boner stuff that has been imported by our TDG friends. Any idea/suggestion is irrelevant unless it fits in with a particular style of play, e.g. Collie’s style of play or Huston’s absolute denial of anything contrary to Huston's self imposed civilian belief system (note absence of Huston’s veteran status). Now we have a TDG proposal that turrets are somehow critical to the outcome of operational warfare. Hmmm? This is of course just guess work with no substance based in fact from our TDG friends. Well, TDG buddies, if you really feel the need, go screw up an Equipment file and leave the base TOAW III alone. That way you can have your turrets as tight as you like and not bother the TOAW community with your . . . . putter. Regards, RhinoBones errmmmm... right... You did notice who was the originator of this suggestion?... Lol. I'm also wondering about that reference to 'Collie.' Our little dancing pixie of happiness needs to spend more time reading the score. Still, it is a novel way of alienating everybody at once. A and b are having an argument. He trashes the argument a advances, then attributes it to b and uses this to make denigrating remarks about b. Who were you trying to flame, Rhinikins? Curtis, me, or all of us? You need to make yourself clear.

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 8:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: jmlima To be quite honest , it's almost... ridiculous , if I dare say so, after seeing so much resistance to any change to the supply system seeing a suggestion for towers in TOAW... what's next, smoke dispensers? Mind you, smoke was a pretty relevant thing also. [>:] Actually, there is a flag for "smoke". That's all I'm really asking for: one for turrets - there's a clear need. There's not a clear need, there's an obscure need. I'm not nearly as opposed to this idea as I am to some of the suggestions you advance -- for what that's worth. Depending on how the idea was implemented, it might make the game a little better -- or make it a little worse. I would like to see a serious attempt to first research the actual impact of turreted vs. non-turreted AFV's, though. This game suffers too much as it is from arbitrary changes introduced by people who can't be bothered to carry out any research and whose idea of military reality is what happens in other war games. It is, of course, going to be hard to research. After all, non-turreted AFV's weren't introduced because it was a choice between having a turreted or a non-turreted 75 mm gun on a given chassis. They were introduced because it was a choice between having a turreted 37 mm gun or a non-turreted 75 mm gun on that chassis. Furthermore, under some conditions, having a turret offers few if any advantages, while under others it offers considerable advantages. You can't just decide 'turrets are better' and proceed accordingly.

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 8:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: vahauser I am a highly-skilled expert Steel Panthers player (been playing for 12+ years). I almost always choose turreted AFVs instead of non-turreted AFVs when given a choice. Turreted AFVs: 1) almost always carry more ammunition. This is extremely important tactically, but is not handled by TOAW III. 2) almost always have a higher rate of fire. This is supremely important tactically, but is not handled by TOAW III. 3) do not have to turn the whole vehicle to face the enemy being engaged. This is important in a variety of tactical situations, but not as important as points #1 and #2 above. Non-turreted AFVs: 1) usually have a smaller target size. This is useful when trying to set up ambushes. 2) often have better armor protection. This is countered by the fact that non-turreted AFVs can be often outmaneuvered to gain flank shots. [But if the non-turreted AFV can keep its flanks protected, such as fighting in occluded terrain where trees and buildings, etc., can be used to protect the flanks, the the non-turreted AFV has an advantage.] When do I use non-turreted AFVs? Non-turreted AFVs are best when fighting in occluded terrain (such as woods and cities). In these cases, a handful of non-turreted AFVs leading the advance (with the turreted AFVs following behind in overwatch positions) is often the best way to attack. Historically (talking WW2 here), turreted AFVs were best suited to independent combat operations in relatively open terrain. Non-turreted AFVs were historically best suited to dependent combat operations (usually infantry support), especially in relatively occluded terrain. The main historical advantage of non-turreted AFVs is that they were less complicated and less expensive and less time-consuming to build. Thus, wealthy nations with enormous industrial potential, like the USA in WW2 could afford to build turreted AFVs almost exclusively. However, many other nations could not afford that luxury. In open ground, I'll take turreted AFVs every time. In occluded terrain I like to have some non-turreted AFVs handy. Seems like a fairly significant factor to me. Especially if we're trying to simulate Steel Panthers.

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 11:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: a white rabbit quote: ORIGINAL: jmlima To be quite honest , it's almost... ridiculous , if I dare say so, after seeing so much resistance to any change to the supply system seeing a suggestion for towers in TOAW... what's next, smoke dispensers? Mind you, smoke was a pretty relevant thing also. [>:] ..there's a smoke flag, used by a Brazilian ? unit, i still can't get the d*mned thing to to have any noticable effect.. ..give it to all black-powder scens and we start to really cook with gas.. Norm probably made the tag, but either never attached any programming to it or decided that what he'd done wasn't going to work right. Left it there for another day... If we're to use it, there's probably no reason at all why it has to be used for smoke. Could be used as part of an improved supply model, or to signal weapons that can be withdrawn in Dunkirk-style evacuations, or even (God forbid) to confer advantages on turreted AFV's.

vahauser -> RE: Turrets (2/25/2008 3:15:26 AM)
Most of the time turreted AFVs are better than non-turreted AFVs. Some of the time non-turreted AFVs are better than turreted AFVs. This is historical fact (talking WW2 here). Both the Soviets and the Germans used non-turreted AFVs extensively during WW2 (mainly due to economic reasons). However, non-turreted AFVs were always used in special-purpose roles and in special-purpose formations. Only the turreted AFVs were used in a general-purpose (or MBT) role. This is also historical fact. But here is the question: Is it worth making changes to TOAW IV regarding turreted and non-turreted AFVs at the operational level when other, more important, issues are out there needing to be resolved? Personally, I think that simply modifying AFVs in the BioEd can resolve most of the turreted vs. non-turreted AFV issues. For instance, simply giving turreted AFVs a +1 on attack and a -1 on defense (simulating larger ammo loads and faster rates of fire at the expense of generally weaker armor protection and larger target size), and giving non-turreted AFVs a -1 on attack and a +1 on defense (simulating smaller ammo loads and lower rates of fire but gaining smaller target size and generally stronger armor protection), based on current TOAW III ratings, could simulate the differences between the two kinds of AFVs without having to mess with the game mechanics. If the +1 and -1 integer idea doesn't appeal to you, then try +10% and -10% (or some other percentage). Anyway, I'm not at all convinced that messing with the game mechanics is the best solution to the "turreted vs. non-turreted AFV" issue (if this is even an issue worth messing with in the first place).

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/25/2008 7:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vahauser Most of the time turreted AFVs are better than non-turreted AFVs. Some of the time non-turreted AFVs are better than turreted AFVs. This is historical fact (talking WW2 here). Both the Soviets and the Germans used non-turreted AFVs extensively during WW2 (mainly due to economic reasons). However, non-turreted AFVs were always used in special-purpose roles and in special-purpose formations. Only the turreted AFVs were used in a general-purpose (or MBT) role. This is also historical fact. But here is the question: Is it worth making changes to TOAW IV regarding turreted and non-turreted AFVs at the operational level when other, more important, issues are out there needing to be resolved? Personally, I think that simply modifying AFVs in the BioEd can resolve most of the turreted vs. non-turreted AFV issues. For instance, simply giving turreted AFVs a +1 on attack and a -1 on defense (simulating larger ammo loads and faster rates of fire at the expense of generally weaker armor protection and larger target size), and giving non-turreted AFVs a -1 on attack and a +1 on defense (simulating smaller ammo loads and lower rates of fire but gaining smaller target size and generally stronger armor protection), based on current TOAW III ratings, could simulate the differences between the two kinds of AFVs without having to mess with the game mechanics. If the +1 and -1 integer idea doesn't appeal to you, then try +10% and -10% (or some other percentage). Anyway, I'm not at all convinced that messing with the game mechanics is the best solution to the "turreted vs. non-turreted AFV" issue (if this is even an issue worth messing with in the first place). Yeah. Another approach would be to make a certain percentage of any group of non-turreted AFV's like AT guns, so that they couldn't participate in attacks on enemy armor. That's assuming, of course, that one feels it necessary to do anything at all about the 'problem.' I tend to assume that the accuracy of TOAW is so problematical in the first place that attempting to fine-tune things to this extent is an exercise in absurdity. Better to address some of the yawning holes. Let's do something about those missing bridges first. Then we can worry about the potholes.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/25/2008 6:06:30 PM)
Here are some figures from the game: Tiger II: 19 AT/19 Armor; JagdTiger: 24/24 = 26%/26% boost. Panther: 13/13; JagdPanther: 19/14 = 46%/8% boost. Pzr IVH: 11/7; JagdPanzer IV/70: 13/12 = 18%/71% boost. And, to go off the deep end: 38t: 3/3; Hetzer: 11/12 = 266%/300% boost. Even discounting the Hetzer figures, those are huge increases. Add in that the non-turreted tanks probably cost less, and you have to ask why anyone would ever put a turret on a tank. Yet practically all post-war tanks had turrets. There has to be a significant reason to justify it. I think the reason is obvious - that turrets are a critical need when assaulting. The non-turreted tanks were suited to defense or support of infantry against other infantry. That needs to be reflected in TOAW. We can't just stick our heads in the sand and ignore the problem just because we don't know exactly what the perfect solution would be. I still think the obvious vector is number of shots. But I would now limit that to AT combat only - they would still get the full 3 shots of AP. There might also be an increased chance of exposing their flank armor.

Karri -> RE: Turrets (2/25/2008 6:55:08 PM)
erm...you are comparing end war designs to early/mid war designs. It's not like JagdTiger for example was a turretless version of Tiger II. Assault guns were btw designed to support infantry and to act as tank destroyers. And I am yet to see why they would only be used in defence. Furthermore, skill is of course a factor.

vahauser -> RE: Turrets (2/26/2008 12:33:09 AM)
I took the AFVs that Curtis mentioned above and plugged them into my spreadsheet. Based on my TOAW Ratings Spreadsheet (which uses data from Steel Panthers): Tiger II (Slow Motorized) Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 7 Rate of Fire = 5 HE Ammo = 30 rounds, max pen = 35* AP Ammo = 30 rounds, max pen = 232* APCR Ammo = 0 Range = 4800yds Gun Accuracy = 37 Survivability = 5 Target Size = 5 Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 155@55, 87@18, 80@30 Turret Armor* (F,S,R) = 215@9, 80@21, 80@21 Top Armor* = 40 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for Tiger II = 20AT / 21Armor (fair geometry) JagdTiger (Slow Motorized) Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 7 Rate of Fire = 3 HE Ammo = 10 rounds, max pen = 44* AP Ammo = 30 rounds, max pen = 243* APCR Ammo = 0 Range = 4000yds Gun Accuracy = 37 Survivability = 6 Target Size = 5 Main Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 155@50, 87@18, 80@30 Upper Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 254@15, 80@25, 80@5 Top Armor* = 40 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for JagdTiger = 20AT / 23Armor (fair geometry) JagdPanther Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 7 Rate of Fire = 4 HE Ammo = 20 rounds, max pen = 35* AP Ammo = 35 rounds, max pen = 232* APCR Ammo = 2 rounds, max pen = 252* Range = 4800yds Gun Accuracy = 37 Survivability = 5 Target Size = 4 Main Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 64@55, 50@30, 40@35 Upper Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 138@50, 44@30, 40@25 Top Armor* = 20 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for JagdPanther = 20AT / 13Armor (fair geometry) Panther G (1944) Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 6 Rate of Fire = 6 HE Ammo = 30 rounds, max pen = 28* AP Ammo = 50 rounds, max pen = 188* APCR Ammo = 2 rounds, max pen = 251* Range = 3600yds Gun Accuracy = 34 Survivability = 5 Target Size = 4 Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 85@55, 55@30, 40@30 Turret Armor* (F,S,R) = 115@28, 45@25, 45@25 Top Armor* = 16 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for Panther G = 19AT / 13Armor (fair geometry) PzKpfw IVH Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 4 Rate of Fire = 6 HE Ammo = 32 rounds, max pen = 27* AP Ammo = 55 rounds, max pen = 140* APCR Ammo = 2 rounds, max pen = 195* Range = 2800yds Gun Accuracy = 21 Survivability = 4 Target Size = 3 Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 85@12, 33@0, 20@11 Turret Armor* (F,S,R) = 66@23, 30@26, 30@15 Top Armor* = 12 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for PzKpfw IVH = 15AT / 8Armor (box geometry) JagdPz IV/70 Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 6 Rate of Fire = 5 HE Ammo = 15 rounds, max pen = 28* AP Ammo = 40 rounds, max pen = 188* APCR Ammo = 4 rounds, max pen = 251* Range = 3600yds Gun Accuracy = 34 Survivability = 3 Target Size = 3 Main Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 85@45, 30@0, 20@9 Upper Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 96@50, 40@30, 20@35 Top Armor* = 20 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for JagdPz IV/70 = 17AT / 10Armor (fair geometry) PzKpfw 38(t)E (1941 version) Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 2 Rate of Fire = 6 HE Ammo = 25 rounds, max pen = 12* AP Ammo = 42 rounds, max pen = 44* APCR Ammo = 5 rounds, max pen = 78* Range = 2000yds Gun Accuracy = 11 Survivability = 3 Target Size = 2 Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 50@16, 22@0, 12@49 Turret Armor* (F,S,R) = 58@12, 30@10, 22@10 Top Armor* = 11 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for PzKpfw 38(t)E = 4AT / 5Armor (box geometry) Hetzer Fire Control = 4 Range Finder = 4 Rate of Fire = 5 HE Ammo = 12 rounds, max pen = 27* AP Ammo = 40 rounds, max pen = 140* APCR Ammo = 4 rounds, max pen = 195* Range = 2800yds Gun Accuracy = 21 Survivability = 2 Target Size = 2 Main Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 64@40, 23@15, 20@15 Upper Hull Armor* (F,S,R) = 67@60, 20@40, 8@70 Top Armor* = 8 My Base Spreadsheet Rating for Hetzer = 15AT / 7Armor (fair geometry) * all penetration and armor data are in millimeters Note that these Spreadsheet ratings are base ratings only. They haven’t been cross-referenced or normalized. But they give an idea (usually within a point or two of my final ratings). Also note that the PzKpfw 38(t)E is a 1941 AFV and the Hetzer is a 1944 AFV.

vahauser -> RE: Turrets (2/26/2008 6:20:37 AM)
A follow up to my previous post. After further review, several AFVs that I listed as "fair geometry" are borderline. The Tiger II, JagdTiger, and possibly the JagdPz IV/70 could be called "box geometry" instead without any major complaint from me. My spreadsheet gives extra weight to front armor and extra weight to hull armor when calculating armor ratings. Therefore, my spreadsheet will tend to give an AFV with a well-sloped front hull a higher overall "geometry" value than otherwise. [My spreadsheet sets an 'average' slope of 22.5 degrees to gain "fair geometry" and an 'average' slope of 40 degrees to gain "good geometry". Only the IS-3, among WW2 AFVs, has a "good geometry" according to my spreadsheet.] What I do when I 'cross-reference' and 'normalize' a base spreadsheet rating to derive a "final" rating is to check, and recalibrate, that rating against certain benchmarks. In addition, I consult whatever historical documentation (including visual) I can in order to determine whether the rating passes a 'reality test'. What all this means is that I never really trust the base ratings that my spreadsheet spits out until I can take the time to test and reality test those ratings against values that I do trust (including historical documentation as well as the evidence of my own eyes). Anyway, my spreadsheet is almost always good enough to produce base ratings within 10% of my final ratings. And occasionally I find that I don't need to change my base ratings at all. Since I'm not really interested in producing "final" ratings for the AFVs listed in my previous post right now (it takes a fair amount of time that I'm not willing to invest right now), for now I'm only making a follow-up observation that the Tiger II and JagdTiger (and maybe the JagdPz IV/70) might not deserve the "fair geometry" rating that my spreadsheet gave them. Also, I haven't spent any time at all testing the base spreadsheet AT and Armor ratings given in the post above. Based on earlier ratings that I have actually taken the time to finalize, I trust that my spreadsheet is accurate to within 10% of my final ratings, but that is as far as it goes right now.

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/26/2008 7:51:00 AM)
Maybe this is accounted for in 'size,' but a lack of height seems like it would be a plus to me. Not that I've ever gotten into it, but this would seem to be an advantage enjoyed by the Hetzer, for example. Hard to spot.

vahauser -> RE: Turrets (2/26/2008 8:41:17 AM)
The problem with the Hetzer is that it is really too small and cramped. Its 4-man crew crammed inside that small vehicle could hardly have been very efficient. EDIT: Further, having a low silhouette is not always a good thing--every little undulation in terrain blocks the gun's line of sight. However, the name Hetzer means 'bushwhacker', which is very appropriate for the Hetzer's combat role--namely, that of an ambusher. Which comes back to the specialized roles that non-turreted AFVs were used in. When you compare the 1944 Hetzer with the PzKpfw 38(t) from which is was derived, it is clear that that AFV design was taken as far as it could go on that small, primitive chassis. The Hetzer was the final dead-end development. And, as 1944 AFVs go, it was not a very versatile combat vehicle--too specialized. Indeed, when compared to its era, the PzKpfw 38(t)E was a better combat AFV in 1941 (compared to its peers) than the Hetzer was in 1944 (compared to its peers). [As an aside, a case can be made that my spreadsheet has undervalued that attack rating of the PzKpfw 38(t)E as given in the previous posts. Perhaps the 1940 PzKpfw 38(t) should be a 4AT / 3Armor and the 1941 PzKpfw 38(t)E should be a 5AT / 5Armor (the main reason being the greater hitting power of the APCR rounds). This is the sort of cross-referencing and recalibrating and reality-checking that needs to be performed on my base spreadsheet ratings that I mentioned in my previous post.]

ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/26/2008 12:59:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vahauser The problem with the Hetzer is that it is really too small and cramped. Its 4-man crew crammed inside that small vehicle could hardly have been very efficient. EDIT: Further, having a low silhouette is not always a good thing--every little undulation in terrain blocks the gun's line of sight. However, the name Hetzer means 'bushwhacker', which is very appropriate for the Hetzer's combat role--namely, that of an ambusher. Which comes back to the specialized roles that non-turreted AFVs were used in. When you compare the 1944 Hetzer with the PzKpfw 38(t) from which is was derived, it is clear that that AFV design was taken as far as it could go on that small, primitive chassis. The Hetzer was the final dead-end development. And, as 1944 AFVs go, it was not a very versatile combat vehicle--too specialized. Indeed, when compared to its era, the PzKpfw 38(t)E was a better combat AFV in 1941 (compared to its peers) than the Hetzer was in 1944 (compared to its peers). [As an aside, a case can be made that my spreadsheet has undervalued that attack rating of the PzKpfw 38(t)E as given in the previous posts. Perhaps the 1940 PzKpfw 38(t) should be a 4AT / 3Armor and the 1941 PzKpfw 38(t)E should be a 5AT / 5Armor (the main reason being the greater hitting power of the APCR rounds). This is the sort of cross-referencing and recalibrating and reality-checking that needs to be performed on my base spreadsheet ratings that I mentioned in my previous post.] Reminds me. If you ever read Seig Heil! War Letters of Tank Gunner Carl Fuchs, the 'scout tank' he is in appears to be a Pz 38. Several accounts of fighting T-34's with that thing. Like taking on an elephant with a BB gun.

vahauser -> RE: Turrets (2/26/2008 5:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Reminds me. If you ever read Seig Heil! War Letters of Tank Gunner Carl Fuchs, the 'scout tank' he is in appears to be a Pz 38. Several accounts of fighting T-34's with that thing. Like taking on an elephant with a BB gun. Very true. The PzKpfw 38(t) carried no APCR ammunition and thus had no realistic chance of knocking out a T-34 at any range or target angle. The best that could be hoped for was a lucky track hit or a lucky turret ring hit that might jam the turret. Even the upgraded PzKpfw 38(t)E only carried 5 APCR rounds which basically meant that a point-blank flank or rear shot had a chance of penetrating provided a good target angle was achieved. And the T-34 could penetrate the PzKpfw 38(t) at basically any range it could hit it, and could penetrate the PzKpfw 38(t)E frontally within 1000yds and flank or rear at any range. And even if a puny 37mm round from the German tank did manage to somehow penetrate a T-34, the small size of the round did not guarantee a kill. But if a 76mm round from the T-34 slammed into the small German tank, the chances of a kill were very high indeed. When you combine that with the fact that the T-34 was faster and more agile than any variant of the PzKpfw 38(t), then you have pretty much a no-win situation for the German tank. Only the low proficiencies of early-war Soviet tank crews (as well as poor command/control) gave the PzKpfw 38(t)s any hope at all of surviving (with basically no chance of winning) such encounters. The only way the Germans were able to prevail in these kinds of uneven fights was to use superior command/control and combined arms. Strip the supporting arms away from the T-34s, thus isolating them, then use artillery (especially 88s) and airpower to finish them off. It is no exaggeration to say that the T-34 came as a very disturbing surprise to the Germans in 1941. Only superior German tactical/operational proficiency combined with air superiority allowed them to overcome the T-34s and KVs that they encountered in 1941.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.140625