M4s & Shermans

[JaM2013]

yeah, i will open one up later.

Anyway, back to US tanks - seems to me availability dates for US tanks is quite a bit off.. for example - M4A3 (76)W tanks were not present at all ad D-Day, yet game makes them available at the beginning of 1944.. Realistically, these tanks were built, but were shipped to Europe in July-August.. Similarly first batch of M24 Chaffee arrived in November 1944, yet game gives them in early 1944 as well..

One of things i did in my file, was to rename M4A3 into M4A3(75)W with slightly better HA and GD (1 point vs M4A1) with availability in 1.1.1944. This way, standard M4 Sherman and M4A1 are used in Africa and Sicily, M4A3(75)W gets in in time for few last battles in Italy campaign, and M4A3(76)W comes one month after D-Day. I think it better follows the historical reality, while it gives player some sort of a progression within campaigns. (plus, having 3 tanks with practically same stats a bit strange)

(I've did something similar to fighters too, P47B is replaced by D version in 1943, P51B gets in approximately at the same time and P51D gets in for early 1944.)

[JagdpanzerIV]

interesting and well thought out.

Something similar can be done with early M4s. (for date accuracy)
the M4 sherman renamed as a M4A1
M4A1 renamed as a M4A2
M4A3 renamed as a M4 sherman
the icons can easily be changed by selecting the correct ones.
without adding new units at the end of the file, there won't be a M4A3...it doesn't really matter tho.

[JaM2013]

yeah, base game has only three usable icons for Sherman, standard M4 Sherman icon, which is used for M4 and M4A1, then we have 76mm Sherman Icon, which is used with all 76mm armed Shermans but also incorrectly for M4A3.. and of course, there is also M4A3E2 icon, which btw looks more like M4A1, as it had cast hull, which was something M4A1 used (M4A3 had welded hull)

So, i think the best use would be to use M4A3E2 icon for early Shermans, give M4A3(75)W icon the base one, and use 76mm icon for M4A3(76)W. M4A1(76) could use the M4A3E2(76) icon. (wow this is probably confusing )


I've also adjusted the British Sherman availability a bit, but of course Firefly is still there for D-Day, just its stats are a bit adjusted, especially initiative is lower, due to simple fact that it used ordinary M4 turret which was considered too small for 76mm M1/3in, so putting much longer 17pdr would make it even worse.. so while M4A3(76)W in my files is INI 11, Firefly is Ini 9. (so 1 INI point below the PzIVH) But of course, at the time this tank becomes available, player usually already has some heroes in his tank units, so Firefly is good upgrade for any units with initiative bonus heroes..

[JaM2013]

And of course, one last Sherman i forgot - M4A3(105) - i'm not sure why this one is set to be primary artillery, when these tanks were usually used for direct fire infantry support. Of course they were capable supporting them indirectly, but that was not something they would do as a primary tactics. Instead, they were used to engage soft targets with that highly effective 105mm howitzer..

So, in my equipment file, i've made artillery variant nopurchase, and enabled the tank variant as primary. At the same time, i have increased its initiative up to the same level as PzIV with short 75mm gun had, as they had pretty much similar use, and for antitank role both used HEAT ammo with reduced muzzle speed to 385m/s

(technically, WW2 HEAT projectiles were very crude, and required minimal spin to work properly, therefore these projectiles were fired with reduced muzzle speed so they would not spin too fast otherwise they might not initiate after striking the armor. invention of ball bearing on the HEAT projectile that would stabilize it against the muzzle rifling and make it not spin, came only after war, and it made HEAT the primary tank killing ammo in the 50ties onward up to development of composite armor.)

So, overall, it just gives player another tank, that is superior to others in Infantry killing, which is quite useful against tenacious German infantry in 1944-45.. in my test campaign i ended up with 2 tank units converted to M4A3(105) while remaining 4 were 76mm variants.

[JaM2013]

oh, and finally i found those penetration tables i mentioned few times for different guns:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/p/versus_28.html

[JagdpanzerIV]

oh, and finally i found those penetration tables i mentioned few times for different guns:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/p/versus_28.html

Russian propaganda, imho.

''[The D-25T] penetrates a Panther frontally at 2500 meters, and that is not the limit.''

roll eyes

[JaM2013]

actually, late war Panthers had quite a bad quality steel used, so they were a lot easier to penetrate, especially with large caliber AP rounds, like the 122mm AP.. Panther turret was just 110-120mm thick, so its not that surprising it could be penetrated by 122mm AP at that distance.. i would be more surprised if any tank crew would actually hit anything with that gun at that distance...

Also what people keep forgetting, its not simple comparative tank armor vs gun performance.. D-25 was very slow to reload due to 30kg ammo being loaded in, so its rate of fire was typically 1-2 rounds per minute... and now if you add the fact that in combat situation it was quite common gunner had to fire at least 4 shots to reliably destroy the enemy (first round hits were extremely rare back then), it would take 2 minutes for IS-2 to actually take out Panther.. while Panther at the other side with its 15 rounds per minute emergency rate of fire could take out enemy a lot quicker.. same 4 rounds would be fired in 16 seconds against the same target, and KwK42 could definitely penetrate the IS-2 turret at typical combat distance..

Anyway, i think very important thing for tank combat is tank mobility.. Just recently read some study where 30 different tank engagements from WW2 between Shermans and Panthers were investigated, and overall kill:loss ratio was 3.6:1 for Sherman (3.6 destroyed Panthers vs 1 destroyed Sherman).. what a total surprise, considering what usually people say about these tanks.. Yet, when you dig deeper into the battles, one thing is clear - Panthers were losing due to fact they had to attack the Shermans, while whenever Panthers were on defensive, they managed to kill a lot of Shermans for single destroyed Panther. Problem was, that Shermans had superior tactical and strategic mobility, so US tank units could occupy positions a lot faster, and meet the German tanks from prepared ambush positions.. This alone completely negated supposed technical superiority of Panther vs Sherman.. it shows that tank combat is not at all about technical stats in the table, but about other factors that play a lot more important role...

[JaM2013]

oh, and btw, this one is interesting:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/04 ... tanks.html

2pdr gun vs Pz38(t), PzIII and StuGIII... seems like 2pdr had quite a problem to penetrate 50mm plate, which made German PzIIIH and J quite resistant to it.. StuGIIIB were also immune to it.

[JaM2013]

And this one is a pure gold:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/search/ ... date=false

its an interview with Otto Carius, German tank ace commander

[captainjack]

its not simple comparative tank armor vs gun performance

Agreed. Another benefit of higher rate of fire is that multiple hits in the same area are increasingly likely to penetrate or to damage armour to the point where it is not longer properly effective. There are quite a few documented examples of tanks hit by many shots that were too small to penetrate the armour (Eure is probably the classic example but not the only one), but even a smaller round need not penetrate armour to rip the MG barrel in half, remove the radio aerial or block the fume extractor or jam the turret. However, a larger round that doesn't quite penetrate can still be very destructive. For a start it will usually put a lot of stress on any nearby weak points - remember the poor quality of late war armour, rushed welding, untrained welders and poor inspection regimes and instruments? Some of the Russian tests on captured German armour include examples of welds splitting, which won't do much for your protection against the next HE hit. So in short, the second or third round on or near an already-damaged will have a better chance of penetrating or increasing the area of damaged armour for the next hit.

Your comment on quality optics and associated aiming and gun stability technology is also important. Having a very effective gun is not so useful if you can't spot or hit the target.

[JaM2013]

btw, what is your take on infantry? i'm thinking changing the HW infantry units into support units, making them switchable into "artillery" type unit that will support adjacent units with fire with MG and mortar fire (1 hex range) - Realistically, HW squads within infantry battalion were supposed to be support units for rifle squads. In game german HW unit tends to represent Panzergrenadiers, yet these were just normal infantry units with own transports. So personally, i think if HW infantry is converted into switchable support unit, it would allow player to actually field the infantry brigade properly, with integral support, rifle and antitank units.

Also, i think German infantry overall is quite underrated, their stats should be a bit higher than they are.. for example, this study states that average German infantry squad had 1.6x more firepower, than the best equipped Soviet Guard infantry squad, just because of use of first ever GPMG MG34 is completely different battle tactics.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-c ... f-Sqds.pdf

Very interesting is part about German combat engineers - Pioneers:

The first noticeable thing about the pionier squad is that it contained an MG34 GPMG and MG section.
If the unit’s prime role was battlefield construction etc this would have been a complete waste of resources.
However in the German pionier squad it was needed to provide covering fire while the squad moved forward in
combat. A similar analysis of weapons such as flame throwers and anti-tank (AT) rifles reveals that German pioniers normally had three flamethrower sections and three AT sections per pionier company (nine flamethrower and nine AT sections per battalion).

This means pionier squads had dedicated flamethrower teams (or sections) and AT rifles immediately on call if required.
By way of comparison, the Red Army and all the German allied armies involved in Operation Barbarossa (the Finnish, Slovakian, Hungarian, Rumanian and Italian armies) had engineer squads without an integrated MG section. Similarly, contemporary western army’s
sapper squads needed heavy MG support from additional units if they were going to be used as close assault troops. In similar fashion, support from flame throwers was provided by separate flame thrower squads

[captainjack]

i'm thinking changing the HW infantry units into support units

I've used this in private mods where HW can switch to artillery class. I generally keep the stats the same except that range increases from 0 to 1, move drops to 1 and AA drops from [1] to 0. This makes them useful without overpowering them, especially as the ammo is a bit limited for sustained defensive fire (SE units become that bit more valuable for the extra ammo). There's plenty of historic examples of HMG support or suppression fire and of course the heavier mortars you'd associate with HW units would also provide excellent supporting fire for other units when not being used directly so this makes sense as well, which is an added bonus.

Another I have tried is engineers switching to bridgies. Combining the two skill sets was a bit too powerful when attacking over rivers (though very useful) but the switch ability seems to provide quite a good balance. French DLM engineering units incorporated bridging engineers so there's at least some historic precedent, but as a general principle, it also looks reasonable to assume that the units who are expected to find ways to cross impassable ground and trenches would also be able to find a way across a river. Of course, if armies had separate specialist units they shouldn't be allowed the switch.

The ideal situation might be to differentiate the ability to cross a river (which most or all engineering/pioneer units should be able to do) and the ability to transport other units across a river or obstacle, which only a specialist bridging unit should be able to do.

[JaM2013]

i'm also rethinking infantry stats a bit, after reading that document. I think most important thing is to differentiate between attack and defense stats, and what influence them. Because MGs are not supposed to be used as assault weapon carried by infantry during attack, but instead, deployed somewhere with clear view and supporting the attack with machinegun fire, i think MG effectivity should count towards ground defense instead of soft attack. Then Soft attack would be defined by infantry weapons carried during attacks, where rifle units would have less SA than SMG equipped units - this way, assault troops like Soviet SMG infantry would be very effective in attack but not as effective in defense where lack of LMG/MMG support would make them easier to overwhelm. There is one exception though - Close Defense for infantry should be based on weapon type too, and fast firing small arms should give better value than rifles, which are not that effective in close quarters battle.

So, typical German Infanterie would have in my files SA 3, GD 7, and CD 2, while Soviet SMG infantry would have SA 6, GD 4, CD 4. Yet, Rifle equipped infantry would have better initiative than SMG due to longer range of their rifles. SMG infantry had to get close, so in case they were not fighting in close terrain, they were at disadvantage vs Riflemen.. Its main reason why Soviets used them in cooperation with tanks, so they could suppress enemy fire with tanks while SMG infantry would get close to take them out.

This approach would also allow to better differentiate between infantry tactics, like for example US infantry tactics was build around BAR support weapon that was not very ideal at suppressing the enemy, but was supposed to be used in direct attack - so US infantry would have better Soft Attack stats but lower defense stats. British would be somewhere in the middle with their very good BREN LMG suitable for both roles, but definitely not outclassing MG34/42 in suppressive role (so while US infantry would have SA5/GD 5, British would have SA4/GD 6)

Initiative based on effective range of standard infantry weapons would also give distinct advantage to halftracks equipped with machineguns.. these would have clear INI advantage over Infantry, therefore would be effective against them in open terrain, yet low CD would make them very vulnerable in close terrain. I think minimum initiative for infantry should be 2 (close terrain is always ini 2) - this way, SMG armed infantry will have same INI in close or open terrain, while rifle armed infantry will benefit more from open terrain due to higher (3-4) initiative. Which means that while German Pioniere almost sounds like the best possible infantry unit, it would have Initiative 2, therefore in open terrain they will be at disadvantage vs rifle armed units.


With infantry hard attack its even easier. early war infantry only carried grenades, which were not that effective against armor. only heavy weapon support companies had integral anti-tank rifles, which should be good enough most tanks in broken terrain (so HA 3-4, as CD of standard tanks is usually 2-3) Engineers equipped with satchel charges would be the most effective tank busters - historically, it was them who killed those T34 and KV-1 when tanks failed to do so.. which means early war Pioniere should have HA value at least 1 point over CD of KV1 (which in my files is 4-5)

[captainjack]

i'm also rethinking infantry stats a bit

I have found it challenging with infantry stats, and I'm still trying to find a really good way of distinguishing units with very good attacking skills and those with good defensive skills so this is interesting stuff.

I'm not so sure about machine guns not being attacking weapons. A few months back I was watching a US wartime training film which included a specific item on the MG teams (with Vickers-style water cooled MGs) working very far forward and constantly on the move. Of course, this could have been a very rare thing in practice, although clearly more practical for air-cooled weapons.

I'm reasonably sure AT rifles were reasonably well distributed in armies that used them early in the war. Other AT weapons - especially ones such as grenade clusters, molotovs, AT mines, satchel charges would have been more common in pioneer and HW units but also present in most other units. In game, early war armour is often around 5 or 6 GD. HA 2 for infantry known to have proper AT provision and 3 or 4 for HW and Engineers doesn't seem too excessive, as it means they have a bit of a chance in normal combat as well as on rugged defence or in close terrain. As I understand it, one of the primary goals of early-war infantry AT weapons was to give them enough of a chance that they would put up a fight rather than to provide a true tank-killing capability so it looks reasonable.

[JaM2013]

My point about MG was more about them being used at suppressive fire against enemy, instead of accurate direct fire. MGs were supposed to put enemy to the ground, giving infantry space to maneuver. Of course, not all machine guns were used this way, US Infantry used them more like assault rifles (BAR), and had to rely on HMG support for suppression of enemy. Its why German Infantry squads were so effective, as even on squad level, they had a MG that was able to provide same amount of fire as others HMG/MMG.. There are some interesting WW2 videos on youtube showing German infantry tactics, where MG group covered the advance of rifle groups, pinning enemy down, giving them opportunity to move to advantageous position and kill enemy with rifles or grenades..

I'm currently testing my stats in game, and so far, i think it works quite well, and makes units more distinctive.. you really dont want to attack other infantry in the open with your Engineers or other SMG equipped units, as they get quite some beating from rifles, yet in close terrain its completely different story.. Overall, it makes combined warfare a lot more important, while some units gained new purpose.. I tend to use a lot more standard infantry now, and only promote units into engineers if they got some initiative heroes..

Also it makes HW infantry a lot more valuable for Allies, as its the only unit with high defense stat comparable to German infantry thanks to HMG/MMG they usually had.

My overall stats are relatively simple, for Soft Attack i go with:

SA 2 - Rifle (low quality)
SA 3 - Rifle
SA 4 - Rifle+LMG
SA 5 - Semiautomatic Rifle+LMG
SA 6 - SMG
SA 7 - SMG+LMG
SA 8 - SMG+LMG (spec ops)

For Initiative, i go with:

INI 1 - SMG
INI 2 - SMG+LMG
INI 3 - Rifle/Rifle+LMG
INI 4 - Rifle (Jaegers/Mtn Inf)

Defense stat is also very simple:

GD 4 - SMG
GD 5 - Rifle
GD 6 - Rifle + LMG
GD 7 - MMG (MG34 on bipod)
GD 8 - HMG (MG34 on tripod, all other HMGs)
GD 9 - HMG (MG42 on tripod)

[JaM2013]

back to tanks - interesting statistics about destroyed T34/76 from June 1941 till September 1942 - 4.7% were taken out by 20mm; 10% by 37mm; 7.5% by short 50mm, 54.3% by long 50mm, 10.1 by short 75mm; 3.4% by 88mm; 2.9% by 105mm and 7.1% by unknown weapons (bombs?)

These numbers were published by Soviet wartime study.. what is surprising the most is higher percentage for short 75mm (StuGIII and PzIV) than short 50mm (PzIII), and very low percentage for 88mm FlaK guns.. 54% for long 50mm guns would be mostly due to PaK 39 ATG than PzIIIJ, and almost 5% for 20mm autocannons might be linked with both light tanks and airplanes (probably more likely as mobility kills, or penetrations on fuel barrels carried externally)

[JaM2013]

Another interesting data about tank production "cost" in terms of man hours:

Tiger I = 300.000 hours
Panther = 125.000 hours
PzIVH = 75.000 hours
T34 = 35.000 hours
Sherman = 10.000 hours


source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&t=2876s

[captainjack]

4.7% were taken out by 20mm

That's your recon knocking a point off with it's 6 to 10% kill chance.

Interesting.
The relatively large amount of short-barrelled 75mm kills could be due to large numbers of tanks armed with these rather than weapons superiority. Also, the short 75mm could fire a HEAT round which might have increased the effectiveness above the short 50mm against a relatively well armoured tank but I'd expect that the long 50 AP round (and variants) would be effective over a wider range of combat distances and angles than early 1940s HEAT rounds. Normal 50mm AP rounds were also probably available in larger numbers than 75mm HEAT rounds.

[JaM2013]

I think its because of the wide time period, when early on, T34 were not that common tank for Soviet tank units (yet they still had more T34 and KV-1 than Germans had PzIII and PzIV), while later, especially in 1942, T34 become standard tank Germans meet in battle. 50% figure for 50L60 gun makes sense, as it was main antitank weapon Germans used in 1942.

[huckc]

Really interesting discussion here.

One thing I find strange with the default unit files is how soft attack varies among tanks. For instance with the Sherman, all the variants have the same soft attack of 8, including the 75mm, 76mm, and 17 pounder Firefly. However, I'd expect the 75mm to have a higher soft attack due to the superior HE round compared to that of the 76mm and Firefly. Also the 75mm tank could carry more ammo and had a higher rate of fire with less dust kick-up. Not to mention the Firefly having no bow gunner and terrible gunner ergonomics. I'd put the Firefly at 6, the 75mm at 9, and the 76mm at 8.

As far as hard attack...

There's also the excellent white phosphorous round of the 75mm that could incapacitate enemy tanks no matter the armor thickness, and is well documented in effectively knocking out Tiger 2 tanks in one hit, as the crew can't see or even breathe.