Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 12/23/2001 7:07:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Mikimoto: I wasn't saying 105s weren't used. I was trying to say that if that source thought the 88 couldn't manage it, and only the 105 could, they were dreadfully misinformed. A few other notes: Someone mentioned the 75L43, I suppose it was. I don't think that gun is being considered here, and given the context of the article about the 105s that weren't available, but the source couldn't escape the 88s not being available, because they were. Another thing. While fighting in PZIII APCR range brings in surprising results, it really shouldn'y be surprising anyone. Seriously. We're tlaking about the T34 being whooped when it shouldn't as though the T34 spent it's entire life letting PZIIIs get close. Sure, for a while it T34s were probably that dumb, but given the general dispostion of ALL German armor, that of guns not able to pierce the T34 from further distances, I would venture to guess that at least a few T34 crews learned not to let PZIIIs close on them, or to make matters worse they close on the PZIII. The same goes for the M3. Try the same thing with Tigers being the subject of Sherman APCR, and you'll see pretty much the same thing (though the Tiger's a lot more deadly then the T34 in comparison). If you play your MBTs constantly at APCR range of a number of tanks, you deserve what you get. I'm not saying the PZIII/T34 matchup may not have a cog loose somewhere, but remember a large part of the equation of having an invincible T34 is to use it where it's invincible. You wouldn't run it through a host of FT engineers and expect invincibility, would you?

_____________________________

(in reply to gorgias96)

Post #: 61

- 12/23/2001 10:51:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by El Vito:
I'm not sure but I thought the Soviets usually had an advantage in numbers am I correct? If this is true I don't think meeting engagements are a good measuring stick. I think an evenly matched battle between the Germans v. Soviets would be won by the Germans most times. If the Soviets have numbers then it seems to be more of a match. I've only just begun the switch from 6.whatever to 7.0 I play as the Soviets a lot so I'll have some observations soon.

Not quite correct. After the disasterous tank losses suffered in 41, combined with the disaster of the first Tank oriented Russian offensive at Kharkov in 42, the Russians often did not possess a tank advantage on the sharp end (i.e. the front lines) What tanks they did have tended to be horded by the STAVKA as a reserve and was measured in terms of 'Brigades' the largest regular unit available as the Russians were still recieving painful instruction courtasy of their German opponents on how to do more with tanks than simply dole them out in infantry support. The T-34 and KV in particular even by mid 42 were not overly prevalent, Info i have from Zaloga's authorative work on Russian WWII tank armor showed 1942 era brigades had at best, 1/3 T-34, and maybe a platoon's worth of heavy KV. The rest were light tanks. By the time the T-34 became the proper MBT of the Red Army....it had lost it's edge in terms of protection and firepower at least. It retained a mobility edge though and of course, was a design well suited for mass production. He (and other sources) also stated that T-34's tended to be encountered in single or paired units, making them easily isolatable in many circumstances and thus, only a nueisience vs. being a terror that they had the potential of being. Look at it from this point, if you've ever played a strategic level wargame based on the Eastern Front, you'll quickly realize that in the critical 1942 year, the German Panzers will seldom encounter their opposites, because they are few or at least equal in overall #'s but not nearly as well skilled, Panzer Divisions will tend to face off against Rifle divisions while the precious tank brigades and Tank corps are horded as a reserve, usually waiting for bad weather and over-stretched German supply lines to take their toll on the enemy. This helps to answer the question from quarters that say the Mark III had to be knocking out something! so they had to be T-34's. Sometimes, but not nearly as much as alot of people think. The #1 killer of tanks on both sides were infantry and AT guns. Naturally when you think about it when fighting a war in which tanks are measured in the hundreds or for big efforts, the thousands, but the men are in terms of thousands to tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, along with their artillery. So in other words, the meeting engagements where equal #'s of T-34's battle similar numbers of Mark III's and IV's would be more the rare event on the front rather than the measuring stick. More often the Germans will encounter few enemy tanks and usually then in manageable numbers. There are exceptions of course but they are that, exceptions.

_____________________________

(in reply to gorgias96)

Post #: 62

- 12/23/2001 7:31:00 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

This is a theory I'm working on a bit, to add to the last post from above. From the prior post, basically summing up, it looks as though people are expecting the legend of the T34 to be just as true when it's placed in a vulnerable position, just leaving aside for the moment whether that vulnerability was in RL that dramatic. If the T34 were always fighting in dense jungles that philosophy would be valid, but it wasn't always engaging at close ranges was it? Gamewise, some of you may be forgetting the doctrine of the screen. Get infantry far enough ahead of it, and those tanks that could only get at it from close range, will not be able to do so, unless they feel like driving through the foot soldiers. I do find that this discussion has centered around the PZIII series a bit curious, because the logicial overall view would be to subject, as I suggested, various other AFVS to it's vulnerable range of another tank's pierceable APCR and you would find pretty much the same disappointing results for the foolish tanker who otherwise would've been invulnerable. It does fascinate me a bit because of a key factor just incidentally involving the Tiger, a tank I made mention of in the previous post. Do any of you recall the doctrine the KTigers had of have PZIIIs guarding them from infantry assult (I suppose mainly so the KTiger could concentrate on the main gun firing)? Now maybe we're starting to understand why it was the PZIII and not the PZIV. Perhaps another aspect of the problem here is that the game always treats ammo as though every battle was preceded with a resupply. Now of course that consideration was vaguely handled when the settings for 'limited' or 'reduced' (I'm not sure what each term means) was introduced. But IF APCR wasn't resupplied at the rate of regular ammo, then that would be "part" of the problem (maybe the APCR resupply could be expected only every fourth battle on average, so that maybe the APCR to average it out, shouldn't be subjected to the 50%-100% resupply possible at the beginning of every battle with regular ammo, but to give it maybe a range closer to 20%-80%). I'm more convinced that the largest problem in this debate is that people keep subjecting the T34 to it's vulnerable range and then expect a very low loss rate, and it just shouldn't be. At least on the defensive, with an easily made infantry screen in front, they'll never have to worry too much about 'anything' penetrating them, but nobody is testing that way. I'd also like to point out, that unlike with Tigers being subjected to APCR in similar circumstances, the T34 argument is strictly 'defensive'. What do I mean? Basically the idea is the same as the Tiger, invulnerbility from the front. But unlike the Tiger, at least the early T34s were this way, the T34 has poor 'offensive' characteristics. I don't think I've ever seen any quote anywhere which said the T34 crews were firing those shells as quickly and accurately as any country west of the USSR. So part of the problem with loss rate, for that period, is you have the most accurate German tank against an inaccurate slow-firing T34. Both tanks are apparently fairly vulnerable at the APCR range, but the T34 comes off fairly badly just because of it's lack of 'offense'. There are also other factors of the T34 having reduced fire just due to reduced rally ability, should the tank be surviving hits but being effectively taken out because of high suppression. Remember, the crux of the T34 legend was how difficult it was to "take out", not that it was overpowering opponents with offensive firepower (though it was still very good for the period, it just wasn't a quick firer, aided of course by lack of optics, inexperienced crews etc.), so that part of the problem of the T34 surviving these tests reveals another weakness, that in order to dominate the battlefield, you not only have to try to operate within your sphere of invincibility, defensively, but you also have to at least keep up with the enemy's ROF or better. To put these APCR battles, which is what they really are, to the Tiger test, you would see the difference when the better AFV not only has the same ROF or better than their opponent, but also higher accuracy. Getting hit more times drives up that suppression, which causes tanks to lose shots. A few of you recall the frustration of using T34s even at longer range, when they are fired on one time and they lose a shot, the PZIIIs often don't lose a shot because of that, for example. Later

_____________________________

(in reply to gorgias96)

Post #: 63

- 12/23/2001 8:37:00 PM

Mikimoto

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline

I think that T-34 gun could have been underrated if it was based on the Russina site (http://history.vif2.ru/guns/defin_4.html) and you have not checked this: The armor counted to be penetrated if at least 75% of a projectile's fragments happened to be found behind the armor plate. Most of the Soviet armor penetration tables based on this value. Curiously, but the German way of calculation the armor penetration was based on 50% penetration. That's why the Soviet and the German penetration values are so different. Also, it is important to understand that realistic penetration values in 1941-1943 was reduced significantly due to low quality ammo.

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)

Post #: 64

- 12/23/2001 10:51:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Theory and practice. They should match up nicely but that is not always the case. I don't know the technical aspects of armor sloping or penetrations. I do know when a game "feels" right. Version 7 has the best "feel" of any version of SPWAW to date. I'll stick with it. It has "almost" everything I wanted. I've learned with time if I can get almost everything I want I am doing pretty good.