(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Charles22 -> (2/15/2001 10:21:00 PM)

Rickenbacker: I would suggest the Tigers did not have frontal hits, but in the case of the hill, likely top hits. That brings me to another point I've so recently discovered when the Finns were making a general mess of my first battle tested Soviet force, and that is, just what is the 'bottom' hull rating for these tanks? I can't tell you specifically, but my KV1s were taking hits on the belly from small arms fire (meaning penetrating hits)!!! Based on what little I've studied the armor ratings down there, it would seem that ALL tanks with over 60mm armor had at least 10mm bottom armor, so the small arms fire shouldn't be able to penetrate, and before anyone says it, it was small junk carried by regular Finn infantry such as SMGs/LMGs/rifles and though satchel charges were being used I can tell the difference between a satchel charge and small arms fire. Now, there are MMGs and HMGs which could penetrate 10mm or less, but that wasn't used.



AmmoSgt -> (2/16/2001 2:07:00 AM)

Charles odds are against a frontal kill on Tigers buy U S 76L54 on wolverines they have 9 rounds of APCR pen 196 against 175 turret front 100 hull front and regular AP is 137 i believe making everything outside the frontal turret a possible kill..I'm in a PBEM game wolverines against Tigers i have killed tigers first shot frontal at 13 hexes with an M-10 and i have fired 5 wolverines about 20 times in one turn, on one Tiger side /turretfront orientation , getting 7 hits , everybody parked blazing away and only stopped when the crew broke and bailed out .. i then had to expend all the remains 50 cal on the 5 wolverines and bring up a track and fire it's MG,s and then call in mortars just so that crew doesn't rally.. hop back in the tank and knock out 3 M-10's next turn or something .. I have seen my armor disappear in a cloud of smoke leaving 4 dead tanks when i make a bad move .. i have seen tigers in the open suffer the same fate at my hands ... it all depends on the player and the skill and skill just means you are going to screw up less than the other guy everybody can do it right every once in a while ... some just do it more than others folks will improve over time and with experience ... But if you start thinking that it isn't a skill problem ..thats it's the game and some hidden agenda by the Luminatti ..then you tend not to try and improve ..it is outside your control .... I just want folks to consider that maybe it ain't the game..or at least it ain't ALL the games fault ..BUT that said if there is in fact any possibility that ,like the close assault triple effect bug ..it needs to be looked into ... I myself don't see this problem ...I was cleaning American clocks with Panzers long before i started making tiger schnitzle with wulfraum dumplings I think Paul Vebber has commented on this issue several times . Paul looks into things ..he listened about the close assault thingy .i bet he has checked in on this ...folks need to address their level of profesional understanding on military matters everybody can learn more tech specs on tanks is easier to grasp than the actual tactics that turn spec's into combat leathality ..and just knowing spec's doesn't mean you know squat about tactics ..I am not trying to be mean or ugly or condencending about this ..dang it ..I'm just asking folks to seriously consider how much about tactics they actually know ..it ain't a crime to be less than an expert ..an if you aren't as good as you want to be study and practice using this wonderful game .. thats all..



Charles22 -> (2/16/2001 2:38:00 AM)

AmmoSgt: Ohhhhh, so it's APCR is it? Still, if Shermans were equipped with APCR as they are in the game, then why was those historic comments made by that officer in regards to the loss to Panthers ratio? I don't know if much if any but the PZIIIH for the Gerries have APCR (well if you exclude light tanks like the PZIIC). So, the question remains then, and it is valid: if the US has a very high ratio of APCR, above what was historic (by historic I don't refer to what the tank "could" carry as APCR goes, but what the tanks in reality ended up with on average), then isn't that clouding the simulation considerably (of course the high loss ratio to Panthers might be explained away by loaders putting in regular AP first and then getting destroyed beofre they got to APCR, or the Panthers engaged beyond the APCR range)? I haven't fought US vs Germany, but on second thought I don't recall anyone ever complaining that the T34s were clobbering far too often, and now I'm starting to see there is some legitimacy to saying the US is too strong. I hope this will be looked into most effectively. Although pricing isn't very good anyway, I would think that APCR in a very large amounts would drive the price quite high indeed. Perhaps this has been accounted for? For what little I dabbled with the US, I was wondering why even the light tanks seemed quite high. The US can be quite difficult to get 80-100 units in, with the start of a campaign, if you are starting only with 3195 or so.



panda124c -> (2/16/2001 6:12:00 AM)

I vould like to point out zat zee tank is for killing infantry not tanks, zee anti-tank gun is for zee killing of zee tank. The best use for a Tiger is to buy one platoon of Ostwinds and convert one to a Tiger and park them somewhere away from your other troops. Serously the advantage of the Tiger and Panther shows up in the 30 to 40 hex range close up the American 76mm will canopen one. The King Tiger on the other hand is practicly un-killable with American tanks. Rocket carring Aircraft are the only solution I have found for them. I tend to get a lot of hits with penatration and no damage, in oneside and out the other.



Scipio Africanus -> (2/16/2001 6:21:00 AM)

Hi, I just want to stir the stew a bit... First of all, statistics such as "5-1 kill ratio" are absolutely meaningless without a tactical (and even strategic) context. Here's an example: In Vietnam, the F-4 claimed a 7-1 victory ratio over opposing MIG's. This was possible because the F-4 had better avionics (like the Tiger's optics) and heat seeking missiles (like the Tiger's long range gun). The F-4 was also a faster plane which could break off from a negative tactical situation at its choosing. Unfortunately, the ROE enforced visual ID on targets and the F-4 sometimes found itself in a negative tactical situation- Superior training often paid off to save the pilot and plane. For the MIG-19 was a much better aircraft inside of a mile: better gunned; better aerobatically- had all engagements been at this range, between equal pilots, the kill ratio would have been 7-1 in favor of the MIG. Someone had mentioned that they weren't more accurate at 10 hexes (500 yards) with the Tiger than with the PzIII or than the Shermans. No kidding. An advantage in muzzle velocity (in a large caliber gun) or optics at this range is miniscule- 500 yards is extreme short range in a tank. Exactly what optical system is going to give advantage at that range? A sniper will hit often enough at that range with a simple scope. In fact, why not open the hatch and look at the guy you're trying to hit, you'll be able to see him waving back as you fire. You won't even need binoculars. For that matter, why not fire your napoleonic cannon at him, at 500 yards you'll have about the same chance of hitting a tank as you would with anything else. The optics and gun in the Tiger give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, just as the avionics and weapons on the F-4 give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, thus a similar kill ratio. One should not expect 5-1 kill ratios at 500 yards, a range at which most tanks have a degree of parity. Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



Arralen -> (2/16/2001 7:51:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Scipio Africanus: An advantage in muzzle velocity (in a large caliber gun) or optics at this range is miniscule- 500 yards is extreme short range in a tank. ... The optics and gun in the Tiger give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, just as the avionics and weapons on the F-4 give it an advantage at 3000 yards, not 500, thus a similar kill ratio. One should not expect 5-1 kill ratios at 500 yards, a range at which most tanks have a degree of parity.
Actually, it's the range 1000-1500m (1100-1650y) that matters, after that even the mighty 88mm gun wouldn't penetrate a T34. Problem is - this is some 22..33 hexes in SPWaW - and you'll find your Tigers pretty much unable to hit the broad side of the barn at that ranges. (Besides, if you set visibility to >21 [24?] you'll find that units can see through one hex of woods etc, not very realistic, too) In general the engagement range for tanks is way to low in SPWaW, but I don't know if this can be changed at all ... And if you look at the unit stats, you'll find that the Tigers are much better than the Shermans .. but don't forget that crew quality strongly decreases after '43. The effect of Amor Command Rating and general experience is often underestimated .. more than 15 points of difference between opposing forces will make it a bloodbath most times .. so before complaining 'bout the unit stats, switch "country training" OFF ("true troop cost" too, and you'll find that most of your troubles with unit pricing have vanished), set the experience in the "preferences" to 70 or such, and than go back testing .. Arralen PS: .. and I'm so tired of these complaints, really .. [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited February 15, 2001).]



Greg McCarty -> (2/16/2001 9:14:00 AM)

Arralen PS: .. and I'm so tired of these complaints, really .. [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited February 15, 2001).][/B][/QUOTE] Me too. Fact is, If we look at the ranges that we engage at most of the time during a typical game, one begins to realize that we are in that "rough parity" window all too often. The usual reason for this, aside from too much LOS obstruction, is that we are often suffering under some kind of time constraint. So what do we do? We get in too close, too quick, often in violation of sensible doctrine in an effort to use brute pressure to force a fast but messy outcome to achieve scenario objectives. When weapons do not behave (or endure) well under these conditions we get cranky. We wonder why these situations don't compare well with the historical accounts we've become so familiar with. The answers are usually there, and I believe have less to do with game flaws than our own decisions (delusions?) about the conduct of a particular battle. In any event, when games (such as this one) first became available which could simulate tactical weapon (and troop) behavior in such minute detail, one of the earliest truths that slammed home was this: As in life, even mediocre weapons could be deadly when skillfully handled, and nothing, no matter how sophisticated, is invulnerable close up. ------------------ Greg. 37 mill AA... can suddenly ruin your day.



AmmoSgt -> (2/16/2001 9:55:00 AM)

Arralen and Greg ...and the people said..Amen [This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited February 15, 2001).]



Charles22 -> (2/16/2001 10:05:00 AM)

I don't have time to read any of the posts since late this afternoon Texas time, but I ran across this quote from "United States Tanks of World War II" by George Forty, which we've heard countless times, but here goes:
quote:

pg. 140 With over 1,300 Tigers and nearly 6,000 Panthers produced by the end of the war, their effect on Allied armor was considerable - especially when it usually took at least five Shermans to knock out one Tiger or Panther! In addition, one should perhaps consider such heavyweights as the Tiger II, the Konigstiger, 68 tons of super-heavy tank, mounting a long barrelled and even more deadly 88mm gun. The King Tiger could eliminate all of it's opponents with ease, so it is fortunate that the Germans were only able to produce 489 of these battle winners, which did not enter combat service until June 1944.



Charles22 -> (2/16/2001 10:28:00 AM)

Have read a bit the posts now and I would suggest Arralen read up on Tiger stories and data. Check Fprado's website:
quote:

Actually, it's the range 1000-1500m (1100-1650y) that matters, after that even the mighty 88mm gun wouldn't penetrate a T34.
Now from Prado:
quote:

"In tank versus tank combat, the 8.8 cm KwK.43 gun is effective in destroying all of the types of enemy tanks, including the Stalin, at ranges up to 1500 meters. Under favorable conditions, the T-34 and T-43 tanks can also be knocked out at ranges up to 3000 meters. As previously experienced in the West with Allied tanks, it was often observed that the Russian tanks declined to fight Tigers or turned and fled after their first tank was knocked out. The same thing applies to the Russian assault guns as to the Stalin tanks. Kills at over 1500 meters have not yet occurred."
Also note these charts from Prado:
quote:

The 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was a very accurate gun capable of first-round hits at ranges exceeding 1000 meters. The estimated accuracy is given as the probability (in percentage) of hitting a target 2m high and 2.5m wide, representing the target presented by the front of an opposing tank. These tables are based on the assumption that the actual range to the target has been determined. Firing on the practice range was more accurate than was normally obtained due to the stress of combat conditions. This difference is shown in the tables below by the figures in brackets. The effectiveness of firepower that can be delivered by the main gun is dependant upon the penetration ability of the armor piercing rounds, inherent accuracy of the gun, characteristics of the gun sights and ability to get quickly and accurately on target. Penetration statistics for armor plate were expressed in terms of the thickness in mm that could be penetrated when laid back at an angle from the vertical of 30°. The penetrating ability of armor piercing rounds fired from the 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was determined by tests conducted at firing ranges which proved that the results shown in the tables below could be achieved. MAIN GUN DATA PLEASE NOTE: 88mm KwK 36 L/56 : main gun installed on the Tiger I 88mm KwK 43 L/71 : main gun installed on the Tiger II. 1. ACCURACY: Gun 88mm KwK 36 L/56 88mm KwK 43 L/71 Ammunition Pzgr. 39 Pzgr. 40 Gr.39 HL Pzgr. 39/43 Pzgr. 40/43 Range 500m 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (98) 100 (100) 100 (100) 1000m 100 (93) 99 (80) 94 (62) 100 (85) 100 (100) 1500m 98 (74) 89 (52) 72 (34) 95 (61) 97 (68) 2000m 87 (50) 71 (31) 52 (20) 85 (43) 89 (47) 2500m 71 (31) 55 (19) 74 (30) 78 (34) 3000m 53 (19) 61 (23) 66 (25) 3500m 51 (17) 4000m 42 (13) 2. ARMOR PENETRATION: Gun 88mm KwK 36 L/56 88mm KwK 43 L/71 Ammunition Type Pzgr.39 Pzgr.40 Gr.39HL Pzgr.39/43 Pzgr.40/43 Shell Weight 10.2 Kg 7.3 Kg 7.65 Kg 10.2 Kg 7.3 Kg Initial Velocity 773 m/s 930 m/s 600 m/s 1000 m/s 1130 m/s Range 100m 120mm 170mm 90mm 202mm 237mm 500m 110mm 155mm 90mm 185mm 217mm 1000m 100mm 138mm 90mm 165mm 197mm 1500m 91mm 122mm 90mm 148mm 170mm 2000m 84mm 110mm 90mm 132mm 152mm
Also from Prado:
quote:

"Using the 8.8 cm Panzergranate , successes against enemy tanks were achieved at short as well long ranges. The most favorable range is 1,200 to 2,000 meters. At ranges up to 2,000 meters, a direct hit is reckoned on the first or at the latest by the second shot. Additionally, small errors in range estimates at these ranges are almost insignificant. However, with good visibility success is even possible at ranges over 3,000 meters. As an example, at ranges from 2,500 meters to 3,000 meters, one PzKpfw VI fired 18 rounds to destroy five T-34 tanks (of which three were moving across the front)."



AmmoSgt -> (2/16/2001 11:06:00 AM)

on a rifle range the average troop hits the target 95% of the time usually in or around the bull's eye and generally gets a passing score sometimes even sharpshooter or expert but at least marksman in order to pass basic training .. at least while i was in ..on pop up targets on a range bigger man size targets hitting about 50% of the time will get you qualified ...In veitnam it took on the average 100,000 rounds of small arms to kill 1 soldier ..seems that loud noises distract even the best marksmen



Scipio Africanus -> (2/16/2001 1:32:00 PM)

Hi Greg, Arralen, I agree with Greg that the game sometimes forces a commander into bad tactics- but this is easily modified in setting up a scenario (I only play email so no problem) I agree with Arralen that one can easily change the experience ratings if one chooses and that the Tiger has a hard time hitting at long ranges but... It IS a whole lot better at long range than any Sherman or T-34. My point was that I think the game is actually really well done, that the Tiger is very good at the ranges at which it should be employed, and that putting it into a knife fight is a tactical decision that should be understood as both risky and probably unnecessary in many situations. Nonetheless, someone is bound to post something like "I can't believe that Sherman knocked out my Tiger with a 600 yard side shot, the Tiger was historically invincible," etc. Personally, I don't have any problem keeping a Tiger platoon alive and kicking as the foundation of a battalion (yes plenty of support), especially under realistic range setting (at least a mile- 35 hexes; anything less and you're fighting in the fog or a thunderstorm). Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



chanman -> (2/16/2001 2:15:00 PM)

I'd kinda like to tie AmmoSgt's comment in with Scipio (great name, by the way) and Aralen's analysis. I seem to remember reading some time ago that in combat conditions, a surprising percentage of the kills were by a very small percentage of the shooters. I think that this applies to tanks as well, but if you call me on it I don't have the proof. As far as infantry go, the number of rounds per kill went up as the weapons advanced. The advent of M16s with full auto and large (compared to the M14) ammo loads that a troop could haul contributed, IMO. In the SP context, Tigers were deployed in special units, with experienced crews and used to stiffen units with lesser equipment. A major contributor to the complaints about tigers on this forum is aggravated by the ahistorical usage. I am a violator here too, but in my defense, I will add that if the AI is going to face me with full TO&E units equipped with latest and greatest hardware, I am going to equip my units with the best I can "buy". That does mean that I will lose tigers in the most astounding ways (I swear that one of my platoons met Sgt. Rock in a Russian uniform....) and that I may not match the historical kill percentages.



Charles22 -> (2/17/2001 1:57:00 AM)

chanman: I agree, basically, for one problem the game has, is that Tiger crews are taken from a national pool in SPWAW, and they aren't attempting to put crews individual to the type of tanks, so that Tiger crews might've typically been 85 rating, while the national pool might be at 65. In the last quote I copied from FPrado's, I founf this one MOST interesting:
quote:

The most favorable range is 1,200 to 2,000 meters.
The first question that goes through my mind is WHY. "Perhaps" it's because of limited traverse by the Tiger (on that topic check this from FPrado's:
quote:

To quickly traverse the turret on to a target, the Tiger II was outfitted with a hydraulic motor for the turret drive. The speed at which the turret was traversed under power was dependant on the engine speed and selection of a low or high range by the gunner. With the high range power traverse engaged and the engine turning over at 2000 rpm, the turret could be traversed through 360 degrees in 19 seconds. At maximum allowable engine speed of 3000 rpm, the turret could be traversed 360° in less than ten seconds. The hydraulic traverse enabled coarse laying in order for the gunner to quickly get the selected target within the sight picture.
, but I wonder if there's not another reason. Though they were speaking about gun effectiveness, were they really speaking about "ideal range" for the KTiger to be operating in, in other words, other things besides gunning are being taken to mind. If that is so, I would imagine it would be because they probably felt the side armor could withstand most AP fire up to 1200m, and when you consider a slower traverse that adds to it. But a 10 second traverse, possible, wow! As to AmmoSgt's last comments, if I could apply them to the report of the KTiger destroying with a mere 18 rounds, 5 T34s at 2500 to 3000 range, with three moving, I would have to guess that the conditions he describes were precisely the conditions that KTiger shot from. For one thing, why shoot at a tank 3000m away if something is closer, and if something isn't closer, then obviously nothing was able to exchange fire with it, so it was under the most ideal conditions. Of course this game doesn't allow visibility beyond 2250m anyway. A distinct advantage for the general German tactics isn't accounted for (being able to fire long-range with some rear units, outside the reach of other tanks' main gun). Fortunately for the Germans at shorter range the slower turret traverses aren't taken into account from what I can see, but then the KTiger could 'manage' 10 seconds so how would you account for that (faster than the Sherman in that case)? Another thing strikes my attention when you examine the Tiger chart on FPrado's site. Notice the one about gunnery and notice the shot at "arc" for the longer ranges. So, to relate the story of the 5 T34s knocked out I come with the conclusion that it's possible that if the targets were the basically square PZIVH, that the shots might've failed to penetrate, whereas it would work on a T34. Why? Because the trajectory of an arced shot had to come in from perhaps anywhere from a 10 to 45 degree angle, unlike at shorter ranges. If the shell comes in at say 45 degrees and the armor hit is sloped that amount it's a flat hit, whereas a target with a 0 degree slope would be better off. Actually, if hit, a T34 at 3000m may had been worse off than a Sherman being hit at 2000m (considering armor and slope only and not other factors).



ursus -> (2/17/2001 6:13:00 AM)

Would like to clarify my earlier question... I noticed playing the AI that fighting the M4 shermans with tigers that the shermans could take mult. hits before exploding. My understanding historically was that a M4 Sherman hit by a tiger or panther was very likely to go up in flames very easily. i noticed this multi. hit event at various ranges and situations not just at certain times but pretty much all situations. I know the tiger and panther can be killed by the better shermans or TD's that came later in the war. I am referring to the early or first couple of sherman types that came out when the US entered the war. I have also noticed that T-34's are easier to kill than shermans, as mentioned by others in this thread. Which i believe is wrong, the T-34 is known to be a much better tank than the sherman except for the later war year version shermans. I am not trying to be little the game and its designers. This is a great game and enjoy it very much. My questions are to find out whether my notions of the tanks are correct or not and wanting to know the truth.



Charles22 -> (2/17/2001 7:02:00 AM)

ursus: I too have heard that Shermans brewed up easily, in fact at least one the variants was called "the Ronson" because of this. If there's any truth to it being more durable to hits than it ought, V.5 might solve that, but with what we have here, the tank was probably rated with the same 'survivability' as any medium tank. Perhaps it should be reduced one factor?



USMCGrunt -> (2/17/2001 7:10:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: So, to relate the story of the 5 T34s knocked out I come with the conclusion that it's possible that if the targets were the basically square PZIVH, that the shots might've failed to penetrate, whereas it would work on a T34. Why? Because the trajectory of an arced shot had to come in from perhaps anywhere from a 10 to 45 degree angle, unlike at shorter ranges. If the shell comes in at say 45 degrees and the armor hit is sloped that amount it's a flat hit, whereas a target with a 0 degree slope would be better off. Actually, if hit, a T34 at 3000m may had been worse off than a Sherman being hit at 2000m (considering armor and slope only and not other factors).
Charles, there's one small flaw in your arc theory. A shell arriving on a trajectory that would cause a 0 degree hit on the front armor of a T34, would most likely ricochet on a non-sloped armor plate. The result of the deflection would bounce the round right into the thin armor of the drivers compartment top. The original Panther (Ausf A I think) had the same problem with the gun mantle creating a shot trap with the same effect. Just something to think about. ------------------ USMCGrunt -When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.



Greg McCarty -> (2/17/2001 11:47:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ursus: [B]Would like to clarify my earlier question... I noticed playing the AI that fighting the M4 shermans with tigers that the shermans could take mult. hits before exploding. My understanding historically was that a M4 Sherman hit by a tiger or panther was very likely to go up in flames very easily. i noticed this multi. hit event at various ranges and situations not just at certain times but pretty much all situations. I know the tiger and panther can be killed by the better shermans or TD's that came later in the war. I am referring to the early or first couple of sherman types that came out when the US entered the war. I don't know; you know in order to determine what the actual truth may be, we are going to have to know a lot more of the details under which people are experiencing these so called probability aberrations. With regard to the Sherman, you're right about the early versions being vulnerable in general, but here again, under what specific conditions? We know that the M4A3 production began using "wet-stowage" which theorhetically stopped secondary touch offs from shell splinters; which of course was offset by Americans propensity to hoard extra load-out in the vehicle. In 44, extensive use of applique armor began to be used over well known vulnerable spots, which should account for some multiple hit resistance. With regard to the term "Ronson," that little "saw" has been applied by everyone from Americans to the Israelis to describe flare up propensity in everything from the M113 to the Bradley. There's lots of variables here folks. And how well some of this stuff is modeled in the game, only the coders know for sure. How this stuff is going to behave at any given moment is subject to angle and motion of target, motion of firing unit, particular design variation of target, range, terrain target is situated in, and more. We all know the historical stats covering Tiger, T-34, Sherman, and Panther. Whether or not a given scenario will or should reflect this in such a small snapshot is subject to a lot of things. Given a hundred such scenarios; yes, these well-known performance stats should be evident. YOUR personal results may vary. Is there room for improvement? Probably. But overall, this simulation models reality pretty good. I don't think anything slanted has been plugged into the Sherman architecture in the code. Surely the same methods of accounting for vehicle architecture are being used by the algorithms for the Sherman as any other vehicle. But there are some drastic differences in the varients of this tank in particular. add your own peculiar habits and tactics into the mix, and you will certainly see stuff that doesn't square with history. Personally, MY Shermans don't hold up well against Tigers or Panthers. I must use combined arms to gang up on them to get results. If the Shermans are left to do the job alone, they often get beat up. ------------------ Greg. 37 mill AA... can suddenly ruin your day.



AmmoSgt -> (2/17/2001 12:51:00 PM)

Greg where in the rules does it say you can use "combined arms" to kill anything .. you need to be investigated ... you probaly stupe to using "Tactics" have you NO shame ..... some people ..i swear



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 3:55:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: The odds aren't with any tank in World war 2 to get first round hits maybe 1 outta three times maybe if firing at a staionary target from the halt a kilometer and a half away ... Under what conditions are you talking about ??? what experience levels are involved ?? Tigers and Panthers do have higher rating on rangefinder and fire control but thats not the only stuff that effects accuracy .PZ III's have a better stab rating so if movement is involved I would expect higher hits from PZIII's you just upgraded to them that means you lost experience points and that would affect their accuracy negatively.. I think both Tigers and Panthers suffer from an inflated reputation from Hollywood and the Mythology of War that tends to make the Other Guys Good stuff Great ... Rate of fire on tigers is a 4 on panthers a 5 and on PZIII's a 6 so PZIII's are going to comeout ahead on a quck draw sitruation where the target is not in veiw a full turn especially compounded by the suppeior Stab on the PZIII's but the tactical situation has been changing to more things to suppress you did the national ratings change in '43?? i can't remember you may have lower national levels that could be affecting things ..explain further
WHERE do YOU come up with your erroneous comments ? Your comment about 1st round hits has NO substance whatsoever ! The Tiger I was in essence, the M1 Abrams of it's time. The vehicle had exceptionally thick armor, sophisticated Fire Control, and a main gun that would become legendary, the German 88mm Kwk L/56. This gun was was VERY accurate being capable of 1st round hits in excess of 1,000 meters (20 SPWAW Hexes). Extracting the following from Fabio Prado's wonderful The Armor Site webpage should give you more insight on Tiger's abilities: "First-round hits were usually achieved with the 88mm KwK gun at ranges between 600 (12 Hexes) to 1,000 (20 Hexes) meters. At these ranges, the Panzer-Granate (Pzgr. 39, a armor-piercing, capped round with a explosive filler and tracer) absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor of T-34 tanks. After penetrating through the frontal armor, the Panzer-Granate usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the tank.....Even at ranges of 1500 meters (30 Hexes) and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition." The Panzerwaffe destroyed 10 Soviet tanks for every tank it lost during the War. This is a hellacious kill ratio. Something the Allies could NEVER boast about. Perhaps you would do well to research your comments before you exercise an opinion based on emotions and ignorance. Or better yet.....maybe you should just bake cookies ! Delta 32



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 4:42:00 PM)

For those of you who question the capabilities of the German Panzerwaffe during WWII,(Ammo Sgt this means YOU) in particular the legendary performance of the German Tiger E (or Tiger I as some know it) I suggest you research your comments before you haphazardly post them here. There is a major problem with the SPWAW engine. SPWAW has limitations preventing historical depiction of gun accuracy and armor penetrations. See my posting to this forum of 4 FEB 01, TIGER E's in Version 5.0, and Paul Vebber's response. As for Ammo Sgt here's an extract from the book IRON FIST by Bryan Perrett, page 103: In the spring of 1943 the Tiger E would make it's presence felt for the first time in southern Russia. Colonel General Franz Halder's ( the German Army's Chief of Staff) Weapon's Evaluation Team recorded the course of action by Tiger units against the South-West Front under Vatutin and the Voronezh Front under Golikov. "Normally the Russian T-34's would stand in ambush at the hitherto safe distance of 1,350 yards and wait for the German tanks to expose themselves upon their exit from a village. They would then take the German tanks under fire while they were still outranged. Until now, these tactics had been foolproof. This time, however, the Russians had miscalculated. Instead of leaving the village the two Tigers (from Schwere Abteilung 503)took up well camouflaged positions and made full use of their longer range. Within a short time they knowcked out sixteen T34s which were sitting in open terrain and, when the others turned about, the Tigers pursued the fleeing Russians and destroyed 18 more tanks. It was observed that the 88mm armour piercing shells had such a terrific impact that they ripped off the turrets of many T34s and hurled them several yards. The German soldier's immediate reaction was to coin the phrase, "The T34 raises it's hat whenever it meets a Tiger!" The performance of the new German tanks was a great morale booster." So Ammo Sgt...you see ? It's NOT Hollywood...it's fact ! And the SPWAW engine just doesn't do justice to the depiction of not only the TIGER E but, other weapon systems as well. DELTA 32



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 5:04:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: on a rifle range the average troop hits the target 95% of the time usually in or around the bull's eye and generally gets a passing score sometimes even sharpshooter or expert but at least marksman in order to pass basic training .. at least while i was in ..on pop up targets on a range bigger man size targets hitting about 50% of the time will get you qualified ...In veitnam it took on the average 100,000 rounds of small arms to kill 1 soldier ..seems that loud noises distract even the best marksmen
For someone who worked in the supply field you sure do have lots of statistics you can't support ! What were you ? 76Y ? Thank God, I spent 25 years in Combat Arms and didn't have to deal with women. Don't you have some cookies you should be baking ? Delta 32



Don -> (2/17/2001 5:09:00 PM)

Alright Delta32, enough! What is with the personal attacks and baiting here? I disagree with AmmoSgt myself sometimes but there's no reason for this. ------------------ Don



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 5:33:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: Stab Ratings are on Pg 86 of the Manual ver 4.1 and can be seen on the OOB editor ..Historically Tigers got killed by air power and bazookas and artilery and all sorts of stuff Shermans didn't square up against Tigers that often against just Shermans and Just Tigers or Just any tank against just other tanks..all sorts of stuff is usually involved Gasoline powered tanks tended to burn more often than diesel powered tanks but tigers burned just as bad as any other tank if the ammo was hit ..so try and check your sources I think you have expectations fueled by legend more than facts and they are getting in the way of your enjoying what the units can do by focusing on what you are finding they can't.. German tanks are just tanks with whatever advantages armor and gun can give them over other tanks and as any of the Axis Players that have played against me will tell you Tigers die at about twice as often as American Armor try me at PBEM sometime
You're telling this guy to check HIS sources ? Where do you come from implying TIGERS had Diesel engines. The TIGER E was powered by a Maybach HL 210, P45, V-12 PETROL (GASOLINE in English) engine ! Early TIGER E's having the 650 HP @ 3,000 RPM version. Later models being equipped with the 700 HP @ 3,000 RPM engine. Not ONE German tank during the War was diesel equipped ! Perhaps YOU better check YOUR sources ! Please do some research before you post your unsubstantiated comments ! Delta 32



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 5:51:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Don: Alright Delta32, enough! What is with the personal attacks and baiting here? I disagree with AmmoSgt myself sometimes but there's no reason for this.
Gee Don....I'm rebutting her half-ass comments. Nothing I dislike more than a know-it-all. Is it a personal attack to clarify an issue when someone makes unwarranted, unsubstantiated, less-than-factual comments ? This isn't the 1st time Ammo Sgt has angered members of the forum. Now because you choose NOT to rebut her assinine comments you rebuke me for doing so ? Sorry...but if she continues to spout her half-truths about something she knows NOTHING about, I will continue to rebut her ! BTW....thanks for your comment. I appreciate it ! Delta 32



Don -> (2/17/2001 6:08:00 PM)

I don't care if you argue with her all day - this has gone back and forth for over 50 posts and you're sure not going to solve it making cracks about dealing with women and baking cookies. One of the great things about this forum has always been that this stuff is not done here - and now it's happened two nights in a row. Personally I don't care if someone thinks the Tiger is better than it actually was, or worse. I know what it can and cannot do in SPWAW, and that's all I care about. Going absolutely crazy with these posts over a game that we all love seems a little ridiculous to me.



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 6:46:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Don: You're right there, Sarge. There are many of us who knew next to nothing of these tanks when we started with SPWAW, and after hearing about them for so long you expect that when you use them every shot will result in a spectacular fiery kill! They miss like all tanks do, and they get blown up like all tanks do. Tactics had alot to do with it, or the Soviets would have had sucess long before they did with the T-34. Soviet troops did not launch a well coordinated combined arms attack against Germany until the Stalingrad encirclement. In SPWAW, if you want 80% shot probabilities with a Tiger, you must lay off the op-fire and let the elite crew and optics do their job. Also do NOT let AT troops near - I have a picture of a Tiger that looked like swiss cheese from AT rounds!
Donnie....if tactics were the main ingredient in combat operations, we'd still be using Muskets ! Tactics usually follow weapons development and more often than not tactics are created or modified based on the performance capabilities of weapon systems. On 17 JAN 43 a TIGER E from 1st Companie schwere Panzer Abteilung 502 was lost to Soviet AT gun fire (AT round penetrated the thinner armor of the engine compartment). This loss occuring south of Leningrad on the Soviet Volkhov Front. Marshall Zhukov gaining knowledge of the knocked out TIGER E ordered it's recovery at all costs. The TIGER E was recovered by Soviet troops later that night. Examination of the captured TIGER E led DIRECTLY to the production of the Soviet heavy tank destroyer, the SU-152, armed with a 152mm gun-howitzer mounted on a KV chassis. As you can see by this example...tactics are not the primary reason battles are won. Rather it is the superior quality of one's equipment that improves the Combat Power of a unit, COMBINED with tactics accenting the proper employment of the equipment at hand, that wins battles. My point as it applies to SPWAW is that although the SPWAW engine provides a greater sense of small unit WW2 combat then any other simulation, it fails to properly simulate the capabilities of the weapon systems in the game. Furthermore from the example I provided above, one can see that to win battles the Foe must improve his equipment over his opponent's equipment. Tactics alone won't win Wars but, superior technology COMBINED with tactics adjusted to the equipment employed will ! Those of us complaining about the rendering of the combat model simulated in SPWAW, as it applies to weapon systems (in this case TIGER E), are justified in our complaints. The upcoming game by Matrix: COMBAT LEADER will fix these inadequacies in SPWAW....and SPWAW will go away. In the meantime SPWAW is the best we have and we can enjoy the amusement it provides. Delta 32



DELTA32 -> (2/17/2001 6:54:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Don: I don't care if you argue with her all day - this has gone back and forth for over 50 posts and you're sure not going to solve it making cracks about dealing with women and baking cookies. One of the great things about this forum has always been that this stuff is not done here - and now it's happened two nights in a row. Personally I don't care if someone thinks the Tiger is better than it actually was, or worse. I know what it can and cannot do in SPWAW, and that's all I care about. Going absolutely crazy with these posts over a game that we all love seems a little ridiculous to me.
Donnie if you don't care about the manner in which a weapon system is simulated in the game, then why even worry about what is posted here ? BTW....my "cracks" about women in the military and baking cookies are MY OPINIONS ! Not "cracks" ! Lastly, it seems to me that the Tiger/Panther Accuracy post seems to really be an issue here. Seeing as it is heading toward 60 posts ! One of the all-time record posting subjects on this forum. My suggestion to you is to refrain from reading these subject posts if it's going to upset you so much. After all, it's "just" a game, right ? Delta 32



AmmoSgt -> (2/17/2001 7:43:00 PM)

Sounds like Delta needs a PBEM game with me .. I'm registered in the 40 and the 43 leagues as Allies ..heck in the 43 league Delta dawn could use tigers ... oh and i was 55G primary 55B 55X and 55R secondary's [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Charles22 -> (2/17/2001 7:51:00 PM)

USMCGrunt: Yeah, I thought that might be the case, but on the other hand that would work only when the round had hit the tank straight on. In other words, some shots would go straight down, while others would go down and towards the horizon. I would imagine that if there were no horizontal direction to the bounce, that the tank wouldn't withstand the bounce, but of course that sort of situation would still be better than shell trajectory and hull slope being equal, although it may be an insignifigant advantage.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875