Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

[deducter]

That's a lot of heavy tanks in the 1 SS Panzer Division. Surely that's your breakthrough force. I'm also surprised you don't have more Grenadiers. The extra INI and attack on them make a HUGE difference due to how experience works (remember, 6 is the magical number for attack/defense). I intentionally designed infantry in such a way that the Grenadiers are massively better at combat, although they are much slower. Grenadiers are IMO the key to holding close terrain in the late war.

Are you still using the Panzer IVG in 1945? That's an interesting choice. I'd thought most players would use either the Ausf. H or the Ausf. J or more Panthers. Speaking of Panthers, I might lower the cost by about 5-10% again in 1944, since they really were no longer a rare unit, and the elite reinforcement cost should keep them sufficiently in check.

You also choose to go with an airpower-based core, with 8 fighters and 4 AA. That allows you to fully utilize your bombers. Very cool! I like your choice to contest the skies, and if you can effectively limit the Red Air Force, then your bombers will be able to inflict savage damage on the Red Army's tank columns. in many ways TAC is like the artillery against tanks. You should be regularly seeing 4-5 strength points on Soviet tanks wiped out from even non-overstrength TAC. Then, your own tanks have little difficulty in finishing off the weakened Soviets. Artillery is much better for infantry.

I personally prefer to use tanks/infantry, so I tend to have more of those, but I do use a good number of AA. I also dial back the use of air units starting in 44 and switch to AA, since I find the cost to reinforce air units prohibitive, and you really need elite fighters to fight against the Soviets. This is also historically accurate, as the main problem by 1944 for the Luftwaffe wasn't the lack of planes, but rather the lack of experienced pilots (also fuel, but that's hard to simulate without crippling the range of all your planes, which I think is not appropriate for an operational game of this nature).

I think for GC45, if you can even GET to Berlin with say half your core intact, that's a moral victory. I don't think DV in the Berlin scenarios are possible on Rommel, although someone could prove me wrong. As for General, I could probably do it, but it'd still be unbelievably brutal.

Edit: Btw, Volkssturm are not really meant to be a part of your core. They are meant to be completely disposable units, or to finish off weakened Russians. If you have say 2-3 core spots open, filling them with Volkssturm and then sacrificing 5-6 of them a scenario is more of what I'm expecting.

[deducter]

One last thing, I feel like normal reinforcements might still feel too punishing to use on your own units. I really want normal reinforcements to be an acceptable alternative to elite reinforcements in the late war; really, it should be used a lot (~50% of the time). I'm thinking of making the dilution of experience be much less: instead of coming in with 30% of the experience of the unit, I might make it 50 or 60. That should free the player to spend more prestige on selective overstrength.

However, if players feel normal reinforcements are acceptable ATM, then I'm fine with that too.

[monkspider]

Thanks 4kEY, my artillery supply is a bit sub-optimal, but most of my losses in '44 were artillery units and I haven't really bothered to replace them.

Deducter: Ah, sorry. I meant the Panzer IVH! Thanks for taking the time to critique my core! I always appreciate your insights.

And yes, the 1st SS definitely tends to form the spearhead of my assaults! I thought about dividing it into two divisions, which really I should for the number of armored regiments. But I didn't have enough SE Infantry to really balance things out and it works really well as is. I do really like Grenadiers, but for historical reasons, I wanted to use mostly standard infantry.

And I did happen to take a air-focused core, which mostly start off as a defensive measure due to the highly deadly Red Airforce in your mod, but as I managed to develop my air units, it has also allowed me to use my bombers as an important part of my offense. My Stukas or HS-129 definitely are very effective at weakening key Soviet armored units.

I have said it before but I really do like that your mod is more about survival than glorious victory after glorious victory. It definitely captures the spirit of the later war years better.

I do also like your idea about normal replacements. I still use mostly elite reinforcements, perhaps 80% of the time (again I am only on General. I am sure this won't be possible on Rommel)

[ThvN]

Hello, I finished the first part of my description of British tanks. Covered are the cruiser tanks in the game, and their armament. I'll continue with the British infantry tanks later. If this isn't the type of info you are looking for, let me know, I have been reading a lot about these things lately and this is only an expanded summary. Any remarks/questions are welcome.

General Notes

Doctrine/Philosophy
British tank design concentrated on three classes. First were the Light Tanks, meant for scouting, security duties, etc. Speed, small size and cheapness was emphasized over armor and firepower.
The next two classes were designed and equipped with as much standard components as possible, mostly similar engines and armament, but were otherwise very different.

Well known was the Infantry Tank, which were designed to advance in close support of the infantry, WWI style. The main idea was that they would protect the infantry from enemy tanks. Thick armor was their most important asset, and they were very slow as a result.

The Cruiser Tank class was designed to exploit holes in the front made by infantry and their Infantry Tanks. So please note that they were not designed to battle it out with opposing tank forces, they originally were to be used as light cavalry, for disrupting the enemy rear area and attack vulnerable assets. Just like the Blitzkrieg concept. Their name came from naval tradition, because they were to operate just like naval cruisers. High speed was very important, armor was light, usually only capable of withstanding basic infantry weapons and artillery shell fragments. Armament was similar to the Infantry Tanks.

Armament
Biggest complaint of their tanks was that they remained equipped with the 2-pdr (40mm) far too long. There were several reasons for this. Firstly, most tanks and guns were lost at Dunkirk, and newer weapons were still in development, so these developments were postponed until the British had replenished their stock by keeping the older weapons in production. This, coupled to the fact that there were only solid AP rounds available (No HE for the 2-pdr), made them increasingly outgunned. But despite developments their weaponry remained rather light and could almost never be upgraded, until after 1943. One reason was by design:

Gunnery
Early British tanks were designed to fire on the move. Not at full speed, but still this required unique design compromises. Turret rotation was of course motorized, but elevation was manual. The gunner would lean against the gun and elevate it by moving his body, all the while looking through the sights. A good gunner could keep a gun on target at low speeds, but this design had drawbacks.
The gun needed to be light and perfectly balanced in the mounting, and not have a violent recoil action. For accurate fire, shells needed a fast, flat trajectory. So upgunning a tank was a difficult process, and even the 6-pdr (57mm) was a handful. The Close Support (CS) versions of some tanks mounted a lightweight howitzer, but that was only intended for smoke grenades, HE was only available much later.

Armour
Armour design was different than in Germany, British preferred homogeneous armor plate, not face-hardened. This was better against some types of shell, but worse against others. Some were cast (Matilda II front), most were riveted, but I will make remarks of the construction with each tank.
Note that armor quality went down early in the war (1940-1941), and only became better again in late 1941. Esp. thicker plates were prone to spalling problems, so instead many vehicles were constructed using sandwiched thinner plates to get up to required thickness, but this meant less protection for the same thickness. Good quality was again standard in 1942, so later vehicles with the same armor thickness would have better armor protection, you can use this for adjusting armor protection in your DLC eqp files to scale the difficulty.

Reliability
You are quite good at modelling reliability, so some general notes about that: Most British tanks are regarded as unreliable, but this is quite unfair. This reputation stems mostly from their use in the desert, were the Germans were also experiencing major trouble (although this seems strangely underreported). Couple this to the fact that new designs such as the Crusader were ordered straight from the drawing board, hurriedly put in service and shipped to Egypt without proper salt-water protection, spare parts, maintenance procedures or training, well, let’s say the results weren’t pretty. Most British tanks and their engines/gearboxes were designed for use in temperature climates, and there were fewer failures in those climates. Although problems with shedding tracks and steering problems were still encountered.

Some notes from trials in UK:
“A comparative trial between pairs of Covenanters, Crusaders, Grants, Valentines and Churchills at the AFV School, Bovington in July 1942 showed some interesting results. Covenanter required four hours maintenance each day, as did Churchill, with the others needing over three hours. Both Covenanters had new engines after over 1000 miles running, better than the Crusaders which averaged 700 miles. One Valentine ran for 1000+ miles, one for 580, and the Grants ran for 800 and 1000 miles without engine changes. Churchills managed 700-800 miles, and had 150 or so defects within the two weeks of the trials, Covenanter 50-60, Crusader around 50, Grants averaged 40 and Valentine 50 for one vehicle and 150 for the other. Trials were designed to simulate service conditions fairly closely, but were not considered representative of actual running. Still, four hours a day maintenance is still a lot of work after a long day in action.”
Note that the Churchill and Valentine were generally considered reliable in service, and the Crusader a disaster. Churchill needed more maintenance due to its construction, so this higher demand was normal in service. Also, Matilda II needed a lot of maintenance due to its twin (commercial) engines, but crews were properly trained and liked the tank, so this is often overlooked.

Guns & Ammo

2-pounder:
There did exist an HE shell for it when the war started but they were not issued due to ineffectiveness, a later HE model was introduced in 1943, still not very effective due to the small calibre. AP projectiles had very good armor penetration, far better ( up to 50%) than the German 37mm and almost comparable to the “short” 50mm KwK, but tended to shatter against the German face-hardened plates, or otherwise just punch small holes due to the lack of an explosive charge. Better ammo was introduced to remedy the shattering problem, but this reduced performance at longer ranges. There was also an AP round with even higher velocity. Later these types were replaced with APCBC ammo (introduced February 1943) which was more effective at longer ranges without the shattering problem.

6-pounder:
HE shell still not very effective due to small calibre, generally not used. AP performance was excellent and, depending on type of projectile, lay roughly in the middle between the long 50mm Kwk and the long 75mm KwK, although without the after-armor effects.
Its ammo was similarly upgraded as the 2-pdr leading to APCBC (introduced April 1943), which gave 10% better penetration at 500-100 meters and almost 20% better performance at longer ranges. So its penetration was only slightly less than the standard AP rounds for the US 76mm anti-tank gun.

Then, APDS (sabot) ammo was introduced in May 1944, which had excellent penetration performance but was slightly less accurate and performance could be unpredictable because of the combination of a lightweight penetrator and the very high velocity. Under good conditions penetration was almost equal to the standard AP round of the 75mm/L70 KwK from the Panther, but it carried no explosive. Crews usually had a mixture of APCBC and APDS for combatting armor.

Game values: currently INI=7, HA=12-14

75mm QF
Fired same ammo as the 75mm M4 Sherman.

17-pdr
Again, early AP rounds could shatter, APCBC rounds were introduced in August 1943, followed in the summer of 1944 by APDS. APCBC performance similar to 75mm/L70 KwK, and APDS performance was ideally somewhere between the German standard AP shell for the 88mm KwK’s, but without the explosive effects and it had similar problems like those for the 6-pdr APDS.

For the Comet tank a version was developed called the 77mm HV, this was a 17-pdr which used a smaller propellant charge, performance against armor was about 10% less.

Game values: currently INI=10 HA=22, and HA=25 for the 77mmHV.



Vickers Mk VI
Light tank, produced before the war, in 1942 sometimes still in frontline action. 3 crew, equipped with radio, so was very suitable for scouting. Steering problems at high speed.

Max speed was 35mph (58km/h), road range was 130mi (210km)

Armament: 1x Vickers .50 MG (400 rounds), last model (Mk VIC) had 1x15mm Besa MG (could penetrate 16mm armor at 91 meters and 15mm at 457 meters). Both versions with a coax 7,92mm MG.

Armor: Riveted.
Front: 11-16mm (most plates were 14mm). Side: 11-14mm, Rear: 4-6mm. Top: 3-4mm


Cruiser Tank Mk I (A9)
Valentine predecessor. Total production: 125, from 1939 until 1940. 6 crew (!), in the hull a driver and two men who manned the auxiliary MG turrets, and three in the turret, standard tasks (commander, gunner, loader). Easily lost its tracks at higher speed or when turning fast.

Max speed: 24mph (39km/h), road range 126-150mi (200-240km)

Armament: 2-pdr (100 rounds) + coax MG. Two small turrets in the hull, each with an MG. These extra turrets were almost useless.

Armor: Riveted, but poor at the front because of the auxiliary turrets.
Front: 14mm. Side:10mm. Rear: 10mm. Top: 5-7mm.

Note: There was a similar-looking tank, the A10, which did not have the extra turrets and had much heavier armor, but also lower speed. Specs included in case you want to model it as a more resilient tank for the early scenarios.


Cruiser Tank Mk II (A10) (‘Heavy Cruiser’)
Total production: 175, from 1939 on, last few produced early 1941. 5 crew: driver + MG gunner in hull, turret has commander, gunner, loader. Overburdened engine, very low offroad performance.

Max speed: 16mph (25km/h), road range: 100-147mi (160-236km), sources vary, but the lower one seems more likely.

Armament: 2-pdr (100 rounds) + coax MG, MG in hull.

Armor: (it was designed to “30mm” standard, meaning every frontplate was equivalent to 30mm armor at 90 degrees) . Riveted.
Front: 22-30mm. Side: 22mm Rear: 12mm. Top: 7mm.


Cruiser Tank MkIV (A13 Mk II)
665 built until early 1941, in use during 1940-1942. 4 crew, of which 3 in turret, standard tasks.

Max speed: 30mph (48km/h), road range 90-100mi (145-160km)

Armament: 2-pdr (87 rounds) + coax MG, note there is no hull MG.

Armor: (it was designed to “30mm” standard, meaning every frontplate was equivalent to 30mm armor at 90 degrees) Riveted, but well sloped.
Front: 20-30mm. Side: 14mm Rear: 14mm. Top:6-14mm.

Crusader (A15)
Generally: first models have an awkward secondary turret next to driver, often not in use (making it a four man tank without extra hull MG), this turret is deleted for Mk III. Fast but unreliable, esp. cooling system and the tracks. Support version (CS) had 76.2mm howitzer, mostly for smoke. Not used in Italy. Later marks were more reliable, but it took a long time to get there.
Advantages: Good performance, very fast. Low profile.
Disadvantages: Initially unreliable, no cupola on the turret, mediocre armor protection, especially top and bottom. The armor was of a strange compound construction because of hurried design changes, making it somewhat less effective, and it was partly of riveted construction.

Max speed: 27.5 mph (44km/h) Average speed: 20mph (32km/h), road range 200mi (320km)

Crusader Mk I
Timeline:
Prototype presented on 9 april 1940, trialled during November 1940. First official delivery January 1941, first regiment equipped in the Middle-East in May 1941, full delivery wasn’t until summer 1941.

Armament: 2-pdr (130 rounds) + coax MG, in the CS version a howitzer (65 rounds, smoke). Small hull turret with MG, seldom used.

Armor: Partly riveted, compound construction. (it was designed to “40mm” standard, meaning every frontplate was equivalent to 40mm armor at 90 degrees)
Front: 40mm. Side: 28mm. Rear: 14-27mm. Top: 7-9mm

Crusader Mk II
Uparmoured version. First unit equipped was in June 1941.
+6mm armor hull front, +10mm turret front, +3mm turrettop, +4mm turretside
Front (total effective): 50mm
Later in 1942 there was an optional armor package for +14mm frontal armor.

Crusader Mk III
Model with new turret and 6-pdr (57mm) gun. Production authorization December 1941, first production May 1942, first deliveries summer of 1942, out of frontline duty May 1943, last production in October 1943.
Due to the increased weight range dropped to 130mi (210km), speed barely reduced.
Note that the turret now only had two men, a commander-loader and a gunner, this decreased the tactical effectiveness, like in early T34 tanks.

Armament: 6-pdr (73 rounds) + coax MG, no longer possibility of an MG in the hull.
Armor was as the Mk II. There was an optional armor package, +14mm frontal armor (could also be applied to Mk II)


Cromwell (A27)
General
First production (Mk I) December 1942, first deployed April 1943.
General armor protection was as good as the Sherman, wit ha lower silhouette as a bonus. Very good mobility and very reliable. 5 crew.

Max speed: 39mph (62km/h), governed. Road range 170mi (270km)

Cromwell Mk IV
Was a Centaur III with Rolls-Royce Meteor engine. First produced early 1943.

Armament: 75mm QF (64 rounds )+ coax MG , also a hull MG

Armor: Riveted hull, bolted turret.
Front: 57-76. Side: 44-64mm. Rear: 25-32mm Top: 14-20mm

Cromwell Mk VII
Officially: Cromwell Mk VIIwE, uparmoured model.
First produced probably August 1943, possibly later.

Armament: same as Mk IV

Armor: Welded hull, bolted turret, applique armor package.
Front: 77-102mm Rear: 38mm (rest as Mk IV, but welded hull offered marginally more protection)


Challenger (A30)
Prototype presented August 1942, first production March 1944, first deployed August 1944, only 200 built.
Basically a Cromwell with lengthened hull and a much bigger turret for the 17-pdr.

Max speed: 32mph (52km/h), road range 120mi (190km).

Armament: 17-pdr (48 rounds) + coax MG. No hull MG.

Armor: Hull as per Cromwell.
The turret had lower armor than on the Cromwell initially, but halfway during production frontal armor was somewhat increased (+25mm).
Armor on the turret was 40-63mm (later max. 88mm), mantlet 102mm.


Comet I (A34)
Cromwell hull with new turret (incl. cupola this time).
Prototype presented February 1944, production started in September 1944. Was to be deployed around December 1944 but was delayed to 1945 due to German offensives.

Max speed: 32mph (52km/u), road range 123mi (200km).

Armament. 77mm HV, this was a 17-pdr which used a smaller propellant charge, performance against armor was about 10% less.
Armor:
Front: 74-102mm. Side: 44-64mm. Rear: 38mm. Top: 14-25mm.

[deducter]

I just had another thought regarding elite reinforcements: who here ever uses them during battle? Perhaps before 1943, once or twice ever, but that would be about it, right? Here are my proposals:

1. Equalize the difference between scenario and deployment stage reinforcement costs. Right now, regular reinforcements are 25 during scenarios and 0 during deploy. Elite reinforcements will follow the same pattern: the scenario cost will always 25 higher than the deployment cost.

2. For 1939-1942 use 1, but starting in 1943 the deployment stage and scenario elite reinforcement cost will be identical (or a very small difference, say 10). Thus, if you need to reinforce a unit, you might as well spend the prestige now. This will help keep your units in better order during a particular scenario.

These two changes are probably most appropriate on Rommel difficulty, as prestige is a very serious issue by 1944. The idea is to allow your units to stick around in battle more (provided you have the prestige). Otherwise, keep them back and wait for the free normal reinforcements during deployment.

[deducter]

Thanks ThvN! An excellent post, and I will be using your ideas for sure. This really helps me standardize the gun values, I already have some numbers in mind. Good thing I adjusted air units/infantry first.

Don't worry, the 17-pnd will not have the absurd HA =22 in my mod (and the Comet most certainly will not have HA = 25), although its INI will probably be 1 higher.

[ThvN]

the 17-pnd will not have the absurd HA =22 in my mod (and the Comet most certainly will not have HA = 25), although its INI will probably be 1 higher.

It seems they compared the 'pure' penetration data for the 17-pdr APDS to the German 88mm figures? This might explain that HA=22 number, but this ignores the much lower after-armor effect, and other issues. The HA=25 for the Comet is truly ridiculous. But you are free to set any number you like , I did not want to suggest any number myself, because while looking through the stats you already compiled it seemed you also changed some standardzed values for balance reasons, and that is a system you know best.

Oh well, I finished up another part, the rest of the British tanks and SP units. I'm already nearly done with the US tanks as well.

Matilda I (A11)
Cheap, reliable infantry tank with some commercial components. Production ended in 1940. It had exposed (and therefore somewhat vulnerable) suspension. 2 crew, the commander-gunner had a high workload and had to duck inside the tank to operate the radio, reducing situational awareness. Withdrawn from combat duty after Dunkirk.

Max speed: 8mph (12km/h), road range 84mi (135km)
Armament: single MG, sometimes a .50 Vickers, mostly a .303.
Armor: 60mm armor all round.

Matilda II (A12)
Expensive to produce, unsuitable for mass production. Production ended in August 1943, with 2800 produced. Saw last in action in Middle East in June 1942, but was still used in the Pacific. Twin engines, derived from commercial diesel bus engines (total 174hp), later upgraded and refitted to 190hp. These twin engines and other construction details made it difficult and time-consuming to maintain. 4 crew, 3 in turret.

Max speed: 15mph (24km/h), average speed 11mph (18km/h). Road range 120-160mi (190-250km)
Armament: 2pdr (92 rounds) + coax MG, no hull MG
Armor: Hull: 70-80mm. Top: 20mm. Turret: 75mm.

Valentine
Cheap to make, small, cramped interior. Quite reliable. Could mount an external auxiliary fuel tank (+136L) on most versions. Early models were riveted, later on welded. Trialled May 1940, first production June 1940, full service July 1941, End of production April 1944 (last series mostly for USSR)
From Mk VII on 6-pdr with 2-crew turret (probably from December 1941). Mk XI (mid-1943) had 75mmQF.

In reality, the Valentine Mk II, III and IV only differ in details, the turret was enlarged and a different engine was installed, each being given a new designation. So not much to mod here .

Valentine Mk II
Diesel engine, 3 crew, 2-man turret.

Max speed 15mph (24km/h), average speed 13mph (21km/h).
Road range: 105mi (175km), with aux fuel +90mi (145km)
Armament: 2-pdr (60 rounds) + coax MG, no hull MG

Armor: early models riveted, during 1943 all those produced were welded.
Hull: Front: 60mm. Side: 50mm. Rear: 60mm Top: 17-20mm
Turret: 60-65mm

Valentine Mk III
Enlarged 3-man turret. Armor on the side of the turret was slightly decreased.

Valentine Mk IV
Different (GMC instead of AEC) diesel engine, giving slighly less range:
Road range: 90mi (145km), with aux fuel +70mi (115km).

Some other Valentine Mk’s are:
Valentine Mk VIII or Mk IX
2-man turret, VIII production was started in Decemebr 1941.
Armament: 6-pdr (53 rounds), in the VIII there was no room for a coax MG.

Valentine Mk XI
Last version, entered production in 1943. 2-man turret.
Armament: 75mmQF (44 rounds)

These later IX-and-up models had slightly more powerful engines to cope with the extra weight, so performance was about equal as the Mk IV.

Archer
SP AT gun, Valentine chassis with 17-pdr. The gun was mounted firing backwards, the vehicle normally travelled with the barrel pointing behind. So, the game icon is actually backwards. The driver could not sit in the vehicle while the gun was being fired. This strange arrangement had the unexpected benefit that it could rapidly move off when it executed an ambush.
Prototype was presented in 1943, but production only started in April 1944, and it reached the frontlines in September 1944.

Max speed: 20mph (32km/h), road range 90mi (145km).
Armament: 17-pdr (39-52 rounds, depending on source). Mounted reversed, gun fired backwards. No auxiliary armament.
Armor: 20-30mm effective allround, open topped.

Bishop
SP Artillery, 25-pdr based on Valentine Mk II chassis. Clumsy but cheap conversion. Fixed superstructure (no rotating turret) reduced max. elevation angle for the gun, reducing range from 12km to 6km. Prototype presented in August 1941, production started March 1942 and lasted until 1943, in service July 1942.
Max speed: 13mph (21km/h), range 90mi (145km)
Armament: 25-pdr (32 rounds) with reduced range (half of original)
Armor: chassis as Valentine, superstructure was 30mm front and sides, and 10mm on top.

Sexton
Canadian produced, based on M3 Lee tank chassis. Designed to replace the M7 Priest in British service as its 105mm calibre complicated supply too much. Prototype August 1942, inital production early 1943, full-scale production summer 1943, fully in service September 1943.
Max speed: 21-24mph (34-39km/h), range 125mi (200km)
Armament: 25-pdr (105 rounds)
Armor: lower hull 50mm, rest 32mm, open top.

Churchill (A22)
Prototype December 1940, first delivery June 41. First used at Dieppe (Mk II). Slow, very thick armor, very good in negotiating difficult terrain. Initially unreliable, later on fairly reliable but maintenance-intensive due to construction. Mk VII introduced many changes and became the standard model for the rest of the war. Some models could carry auxiliary fuel tank to extend the range by 20%. Almost all models had a hull mounted MG.

Max speed: 15,5mph (23km/h), road range 123mi (200km)

Armor on Mk I - Mk VI:
Hull Front: 89-102mm Side: 76mm. Rear: 50-64mm. Top: 15-19mm.
Turret: 89mm.
These are nearly Tiger values.

Churchill Mk II
Armament: 2-pdr (150 rounds)+ coax MG.

Churchill Mk IV
First production March 42, first used in Middle East in October 42.
Armament: 6-pdr (84 rounds) + coax MG

Churchill Mk VI
Introduced 1st half of 1943.
Armament: 75mm QF (84 rounds) + coax MG

Churchill Mk VII
Introduced December 1943, used in Normandy. Wider, welded uparmoured hull with round hatches.
Max speed: 13mph (21km/h)
Armament: 75mm QF (84 rounds) + coax MG
Armor:
Hull Front: 140-152mm. Side: 95mm. Rear: 50-64mm. Top: 20mm
Turret Front: 152mm, rest 95mm.

The Churchill uses two different icons in the game, which differ a bit in size. The Churchill_Mk.VII.png seems correct for the Mk VII and later, but is also used in the game for the Mk VI. This version should probably use the other icon, Churchill_Mk.IV.png , this depicts the earlier models (Mk II, IV and should be VI as well.)

Next up: American tanks.

[monkspider]

Simply outstanding work ThvN, my hat is off to you good sir. Quite an interesting read as well, I look forward to the American chapter.

[ThvN]

Well, the Americans need less of an introduction I think, but since I was busy I added in all standard variants of the tanks, although the game doesn't use them all (understandably). BTW, I forgot to put in the British versions of the M10 (Wolverine and Achilles), so I put them in the US section. Oh, and the worst job was finding out how thick the armor of the superstructure of the Bishop SP gun was, especially since it is not a really important unit. Anyway:

General Notes

Doctrine/Philosophy

US tanks are often critised for being slow to improve, and of their increasing inferiority when dealing with German tanks. This was a byproduct of the US doctrine, where tanks were to engage with all sorts of targets and the more specialized tank-vs-tank work was the territory of the TD, the Tank Destroyer. These are not really SP AT guns, but a special class. TD’s like the M10 were standard tank chassis with little armor and were supposed to quickly manoeuver and focus on destroying enemy tanks. The ultimate example is the M18 ‘Hellcat’.

So the Shermans had guns which had good HE (soft attack) performance, while being less suited to deal with enemy tanks. The whole US anti-tank doctrine was a failure however, and the TD’s were often misused as tanks, but they were vulnerable to artillery and infantry, and needed to operate fairly indepently, not in support of slow-moving infantry which robbed them of their mobility, their primary asset.

Another problem was, when anti-tank performance needed to be improved, this doctrine made designers focus on improving TD’s and anti-tank guns, not on improving ordinary tanks, which fulfilled their duties as designed.

The US were also slow to adapt heavier AT guns, mostly because anti-tank development was mostly guided by infantry demands. And these demands were focused on lightweight anti-tank guns, which could be handled by small infantry units. This eventually produced the bazooka, but until then SP AT guns, or even AT guns bigger than the existing 37mm, were resisted.

When SP guns (mostly AT guns mounted on halftracks) started to appear they were misused as cheap ‘tanks’ and losses were higher than expected. This actually reversed development, as the amount of towed AT guns was actually increased because SP guns were deemed a failure. But this was in 1943, and when the fighting on the continent intensified new designs were hurried through development. But until then the older types of tanks and TD’s kept being produced, so the quality gap increased. But that’s what airpower and artillery is for, I suppose.

In tank design, one strange problem was that the USA never developed a good big tank engine, despite their huge automotive industry. The army did not want to use diesel engines, but even then there was no equivalent to a Rolls-Royce Meteor or Maybach, just a strange assortment of radial aircraft engines (which were needed for aircraft, and ran on high-octane gasoline), several smaller engines trying to act like a bigger one (and failing). Finally a Ford V8 (GAA) accidently became the standard engine, while that was scaled down from a V12, so this lack of a bigger engine is even more puzzling. This V8 was just adequate for the Sherman, so building heavier hardware was problematic.

Guns & Ammo

37mm
Nice little gun, better than average AP performance, but in use for far too long, it was introduced in 1940, when other countries were already close to introducing substantially better guns. HE shells were available but not very effective.

57mm
This was the British 6-pdr, which was already made in the USA for British use, so they adapted it as well.

3-inch
The 3” was the gun mounted on the M10, and as a towed AT gun was called the 3 inch Gun M5. There were problems with the ammuntion, severly degrading penetration performance. Simpler ammunition types had low penetration, so either way results were dissapointing. The towed M5 was introduced early 1943 and was not very popular. By that time its performance was rather unexceptional and the gun itself was rather heavy, half a ton more than the German 75mm PaK 40.

A note on the appearance of the US towed AT guns in the game.
They all use the same icon, “76mm_3_Inch_M5.png”.
This is strange, the 57mm should use the “QF_6_pounder.png”
The 37mm can be depicted by “47mm_SA_37.png”, or maybe “25mm_SA_34.png”

75mm L40
The gun for the Sherman, although earlier versions were mounted in the M3 Lee, but with a shorter barrel (M2 L31). HE performance was very good, AP performance initially not, somewhere between the short (L24) and the long (L43)75mm KwK from the Panzer IV. Later ammunition brought it up to par with the KwK 75mmL43, so its performance was acceptable for 1942, but later in 1944(!) this was again inadequate, and the first 76mm Shermans were finally introduced, far too late.

76mm L52
On paper, quite effective, but is was introduced fairly late and it proved incapable of defeating a Panther from the front. AP performance was similar to the KwK 75mm/L48 at shorter ranges, slighty better at longer ranges, but still well below that of the 75mm L70 of the Panther. HVAP (APCR) ammo closed the gap somewhat, but was only first introduced on a small scale in August 1944, with production always behind demand. HE performance was inferior compared to the 75mm, the projectile carried 40% less explosive filler.

90mm L53
Derived from an anti-aircraft gun, with similar performance as the German 88mm L56, it was developed by mid 1943, but mounting it in a vehicle was delayed due to political/doctrinal reasons. Right before the end of the war a few guns (L73) were delivered with improved performance, in response to the 88mm L71.


Name of tank (British desigation)

Light Tank M2A4
First production May 1940. Only used in small numbers in Pacific Theatre. Predecessor of the M3 Stuart, similar but slightly less armored.

Light Tank M3 (Stuart I)
First version in production from March 1941. Thirsty engine which required high-octane gasoline but very reliable vehicle.
Max speed: 36mph (58km/h), road range 70mi (110km)
Armament: 37mm M5 (103 rounds) + coax MG. Hull MG
Armor: mostly riveted/cast.
Front: 38mm. Side: 25mm. Rear: 25mm. Top: 13mm
Later in production the turret protection was improved and a slightly longer gun was installed.

Light Tank M3, Diesel. (Stuart II)
Diesel engine, not used in US Army. First in production in June 1941.
Max speed: 36mph(58km/h), road range 90mi (145km)
Rest as M3 Stuart.

Light Tank M3A1
First production May 1942, upgraded turret (power traverse, turret basket). Both in gasoline (Stuart III) and diesel (Stuart IV) version like the M3 Stuart.

Light Tank M3A3 (Stuart V)
First production September 1942. Sloped front hull like M5, bigger turret.
Max speed: 31mph (50km/h), road range: 135mi (215km)
Slightly better frontal armor protection, could carry more ammo (174 rounds for 37mm)

Light Tank M5 (Stuart VI)
First production April 1942. Redesigned M3 with different engine, better armor layout (sloped front).
Max speed: 36mph(58km/h), road range 100mi (160km)
Armament: 37mm M6 (123 rounds) + coax MG. Hull MG
Armor: mostly welded/cast, a little better protection than M3.
Front: 42mm. Side: 25mm. Rear: 25mm. Top: 13mm

Light Tank M5A1 (Stuart VI)
First production November 1942. Like M5, but with bigger turret from M3A3

In the game it almost seems as if the M3 and M5 light tanks have switched characteristics.



Medium Tank M3 (British designation Lee or Grant)
Very high profile, 75mm gun like the Sherman but with lower AP performance, mounted in the hull with limited traverse. Extra turret on top with 37mm gun. Fairly reliable. American models are called ‘Lee’ in British service, and models esp. adapted for the British are called ‘Grant’.

Medium Tank M3 Lee (Grant I)
First production June 1941. British (Grant) version had slightly different upper turret, no cupola.
Max speed: 21mph (34km/h), road range: 120mi (190km)
Armament: 75mm M2 or M3 in hull (50 rounds), 37mm M5 or M6 in upper turret (178 rounds) + coax MG. Small extra cupola with extra MG.
Armor: riveted, giving slightly less protection than M3A1 but easier manufacture.
Front: 38-51mm. Side: 38mm. Rear: 38mm. Top: 13mm.

Medium Tank M3A1 (Lee II)
First production January 1942.
Max speed: 21mph (34km/h), road range: 120mi (190km)
Armor: upper hull was cast, rest riveted.
Rest as M3.

Medium Tank M3A2 (Lee III)
First production January 1942. Armor was welded.
Rest as M3.

Medium Tank M3A5 (Grant II)
First production January 1942. Armor was welded or riveted depending on factory. Diesel engine, 600 produced.
Max speed: 25mph (40km/h), road range: 150mi (240km)
Rest as M3A1.

Medium Tank M3A3 (Lee V)
First production March 1942. Armor was welded, diesel engine, only 300 produced.
Max speed: 25mph (40km/h), road range: 150mi (240km)
Rest as M3.

Medium Tank M3A4 (Lee IV)
First production June 1942. Different engine in slighty longer hull, 100 produced.
Max speed: 20mph (32km/h), road range: 100mi (160km)
Rest as M3



Sherman
Reliable vehicle, easily mass-produced. Combat effectiveness was initially very good due to the 3-man turret carrying a 75mm gun, despite the fairly high profile. Problems were that early versions were easily set alight because of poorly protected ammo storage, leading to the ‘W’ versions, which had wet ammo storage to prevent fires. Furthermore, lack of upgrades later in it’s life meant that it started to fall behind the newer German tanks, although as a support tank it was still very good.

The differences between early versions are the powerplant and the way the hull was assembled. Later on a new gun (76mm) in a new turret was introduced, and also a new suspension system, HVSS, which was more comfortable and used wider tracks for better mobility. With all these improvements it was effectively used in the Korean War against T34-85’s.

Medium Tank M4A1 (Sherman II)
Cast (rounded) hull, radial engine. Production started February 1942.
Max speed 21mph (34km/h), range 120mi (190km).
Armament: 75mm (90 rounds)+ coax MG, and hull mounted MG.

Armor: front well sloped (equivalent to 80mm armor set at 90 degrees) , cast hull.
Hull: Front 51mm, Side: 38mm Rear: 38mm Top: 13-19mm
Turret: Front 76-89mm. Side: 51mm Rear: 51mm. Top: 25mm.

Medium Tank M4A2 (Sherman III)
Early welded hull, twin diesel engine as in M3A3/A5 Lee. Production started April 1942.
Max speed 25mph (40km/h), range 150mi (240km)
Armament: 75mm (97 rounds) + coax MG, and hull MG
Armor as M4A1, but with welded hull.

Medium Tank M4A3 (Sherman IV)
Welded hull, Ford V8. Production started June 1942.
Max speed 26mph (42km/h), range 100mi (160km)
Rest as M4A2.

Medium Tank M4 (Sherman I) Mid production model.
Welded, some have hybrid cast/welded hull (rounded front, angled rear), radial engine. Production started July 1942.
Max speed 21mph (34km/h), range 120mi (190km).

Medium Tank M4A4 (Sherman V)
Welded, slightly longer hull, with Chrysler multibank engine, which consisted of five car engines put together. Production started July 1942.
Max speed 20mph(32km/h), range 100mi (160km)


Medium Tank M4A1(76)W (Sherman IIA)
Welded hull, radial engine, wet ammo storage. Some built with HVSS (Sherman IIAY). Production started January 1944. 76mm gun in new turret.
Max speed: 21mph(34km/h), range: 120mi (190km)
Armament: 76mm (71 rounds) + coax MG, also hull MG

Armor: front plate equivalent to a 93mm plate set at 90 degrees.
Hull: Front 64mm, Side: 38mm Rear: 38mm Top: 13-19mm
Turret: Front 64-89mm. Side: 64mm Rear: 64mm. Top: 25mm.

Medium Tank M4A3W
Welded hull, Ford V8. Older type with 75mm gun, now with wet ammo storage. Production started February 1944.
Max speed: 26mph (42km/h), range 100mi (160km)
Armament: 75mm (104) + coax MG, also hull MG

Armor: front well sloped (equivalent to 80mm armor set at 90 degrees)
Hull: Front 51mm, Side: 38mm Rear: 38mm Top: 13-19mm
Turret: Front 76-89mm. Side: 51mm Rear: 51mm. Top: 25mm.

Medium Tank M4A3(76)W (Sherman IVA)
Welded hull, Ford V8, wet ammo storage. Production started March 1944.
Max speed: 26mph(42km/h), range 100mi (160km)
Rest as M4A1(76)W.

Medium Tank M4A2(76)W (Sherman IIIA)
Welded hull, twin diesel engine, wet ammo storage. Production started May 1944.
Max (sprint) speed 30mph (48km/h) - sustained top speed 25mph (40km/h), range 150mi (240km)
Rest as M4A1(76)W.

Medium Tank M4A3(76)W HVSS (Sherman IVAY)
Welded hull, Ford V8, wet ammo storage. Wider tracks with new suspension system, nicknamed ‘Easy Eight’. Production started August 1944.
Max speed: 26mph (42km/h), range 100mi(160km)
Rest as M4A1(76)W.

Assault Tank M4A3E2 ‘Jumbo’
254 built. Welded, uparmored hull, Ford V8. Unique, heavily armored turret. Production started June 1944. Was designed as an assault or ‘breakthrough’ tank, but mobility suffered because the weight was increased by more than 20%.
Max speed: 22mph (35km/h), range 100mi (160km)
Armament: 75mm (104 rounds) or as a field-mod a 76mm (71 rounds) could be mounted, officially sanctioned in March 1945 (Assault Tank M4A3E2(76) ‘Jumbo’). With coax MG, also hull MG.
Armor: front well sloped (equivalent to 146mm armor set at 90 degrees)
Hull: Front 100-114mm, Side: 38-76mm. Rear:38mm. Top: 19mm
Turret: Front: 150-178mm. Side: 150mm Rear: 150mm Top: 25mm

Medium Tank M4(105) (Sherman IB)
Artillery model. Welded hull, radial engine, no power traverse for turret, extra armor for ammo storage, but no wet storage. Some built with HVSS (Sherman IBY). Production started February 1944.
Max speed: 21mph (34km/h), range 120mi (190km)
Armament: 105mm howitzer (66 rounds) + coax MG, also hull MG
Armor: Hull as M4, turret is slightly thicker:
Turret: Front 76-91mm. Side: 64mm. Rear: 64mm. Top: 25mm

Medium Tank M4A3(105) (Sherman IVB)
Welded hull, Ford V8, no turret power traverse until second half of 1944, extra armor for ammo storage, but no wet storage. Production started May 1944.
Max speed 26mph (42km/h), range 100mi(160km)
Rest as M4(105)

Medium Tank M4A3(105) HVSS (Sherman IVBY)
Welded hull, Ford V8, extra armor for ammo storage, but no wet storage. HVSS suspension. Production started September 1944.
Rest as M4A3(105)

Medium Tank M26 Pershing
In production from November 1944, sent over to Europe (still named T26E3) in January 1945, renamed M26 later in 1945. Underpowered (Sherman engine) and relatively unreliable.
Max speed 25mph (40km/h), range 100mi(160km)
Armament: 90mm (70 rounds) + coax MG, also hull MG.
Armor: well sloped at front, last models had increased protection.
Hull: Front: 76-100mm. Side: 51-76mm. Rear: 51mm. Top: 22mm
Turret: Front: 100-110mm. Side: 76mm. Rear: 76mm. Top: 25mm.


3” GMC M10 (Wolverine)
Based on M4A2 Sherman, with 3-inch (76mm) gun in open turret. Manual traverse, so aiming was slow. First produced in September 1942. GMC stands for Gun Motor Carriage.
Max speed: 25mph (40km/h), road range 200mi (320km)
Armament: 3-inch or 76mm (54 rounds). No coax or hull MG.
Armor: was at front 30% less than Sherman, other sides 40% less, and the turret was open-topped.
Front: 38mm. Side, rear and top (engine deck): 19mm.

3” GMC M10A1 (Wolverine)
Based on M4A3 Sherman (Ford V8). First produced in October 1942.
Max speed: 26mph (42km/h), road range 130mi (210km).
Rest as M10.

In British service (from the end of 1942), extra 17mm armor plates were added to the front and sides of the hull, and often 20mm turret top (roof) armor was installed. Later on (April 1944) a 17-pdr started to replace the 3-inch gun, and these conversions were called Achilles.

90mm GMC M36
Hull of M10A1 with new turret which had slightly better armor. First production April 1944, in frontline service in September 1944.
Armament: 90mm (47 rounds). No coax or hull MG.
Rest as M10A1


76mm GMC M18 ‘Hellcat’
Very fast tankdestroyer. First production in July 1943. Very easy to do large maintenance jobs due to special layout.
Max speed: 50mph(80km/h), road range: 100mi (160km)
Armament: 76mm (45 rounds), .50 MG mounted on ring on top of turret.
Armor: light, with open-topped turret.
Hull armor 13mm, well sloped.
Turret front 25mm, rest of turret 13mm.


75mm HMC M8
Howitzer Motor Carriage based on light tank M5, in production September 1942.
Max speed: 36mph (58km/h), road range: 100mi (160km)
Armament: 75mm ‘Pack’ howitzer (46 rounds). Range 8,5 km
Armor: as M5, but with open turret which had slightly less armor than the one on the M5.

105mm HMC M7 (Priest)
Based on medium tank M3 Lee, later on M4 Sherman. First production in April 1942.
Max speed 21mph (34km/h), road range: 120mi (190km)
Armament: 105mm howitzer (69 rounds), standard .50 AA MG. Slighty lower range than field gun.
Armor: Welded, open fighting compartment, superstructure 13mm.

155mm GMC M12
Based on medium tank M3 Lee, only 100 build. First production in September 1942.
Max speed: 21mph (34km/h), road range: 140mi (230km)
Armament: 155mm (10 rounds on board), extra ammo carrier called M30 could carry crew and 40 rounds.
Armor: open fighting compartment, superstructure 13-19mm.

[soldier]

Don't forget to look at the 17 pounder field AT gun. I'm pretty sure its initiative is only 6. It was closely matched to the 75mm/L70 KwK as ThvN mentions so should really have initiative of 8 or 9. A deadly danger for the big cats

[Tarrak]

Don't forget to look at the 17 pounder field AT gun. I'm pretty sure its initiative is only 6. It was closely matched to the 75mm/L70 KwK as ThvN mentions so should really have initiative of 8 or 9. A deadly danger for the big cats

Initiative is not only depending on the gun itself tho but a well on the platform it's mounted on. It measures the quality of optics, communication facilities and similar as well. Not saying here the Initiative in that particular case should not be changed just pointing the general meaning of initiative in Panzer Corps out.

[Razz1]

Don't forget to look at the 17 pounder field AT gun. I'm pretty sure its initiative is only 6. It was closely matched to the 75mm/L70 KwK as ThvN mentions so should really have initiative of 8 or 9. A deadly danger for the big cats

The British 17lbr has a much better armor penetration.

That's why it is 22

I have increased the initiate by one and it works very well against the German tanks.

The Allied units are not that far off from balance.

[ThvN]

Don't forget to look at the 17 pounder field AT gun. I'm pretty sure its initiative is only 6. It was closely matched to the 75mm/L70 KwK as ThvN mentions so should really have initiative of 8 or 9. A deadly danger for the big cats

The British 17lbr has a much better armor penetration.

That's why it is 22

I have increased the initiate by one and it works very well against the German tanks.

The Allied units are not that far off from balance.

I hope I don't take this too far off-topic, but since I just read/compiled all this historical data, I couldn't resist. And yes, I think a lot of the allied stats are reasonably balanced already, save for some anomalies.

About the poor INI for the towed 17-pdr: in the game, AT units get +3 INI when attacked by tanks/recon, this is also explained in deducters manual. The lower standard value is probably to represent the fact that a multiple-ton towed trailer is not exactly the ideal vehicle to attack with. If you have ever seen Dutch tourists (mis)handling their towed caravans on pefectly flat campsites, well, imagine doing that with a 3-ton gun. On the defense however, these things are easier to hide and execute ambushes with, so they recieve this INI bonus. Deducter usually gives them -3 INI, personally I look at how easy the piece was to manhandle/conceal (weight, size) and adjust the INI accordingly (For now I'm testing the 37mm PaK with 0 INI penalty, 50mm PaK gets -1, 75mm -2, 88mm PaK -3, but I will probably nerf them further). Allied AT guns were generally heavier than their German counterparts.

And, yes, as I said somewhere above, the HA=22 for the 17-pdr is understandable when comparing the pure penetration performance with other guns. In the game, the only two figures that model the damage a tank unit receives when hit (after INI), are HA and GD (sometimes CD, but that is not the same type of protection as GD).

But of course, in reality, the damage received is depends on a lot of variables. So just plugging in a number based on some amount of milimetres of armor pierced is a bit too simple for me.

A solid, very fast but relatively small projectile might have huge penetration performance, but they are usually more easily deflected by larger impact angles (sloped armor has a double benefit). And early high-velocity projectiles ran into a nasty problem called shattering. This is were a projectile hits armor that 'overmatches' it in thickness, or permitted angle of impact or even hardness, and it will simply desintegrate due to the stress, doing virtually zero damage.

Since most penetration testing was done using a countries' own standards, earlier British AT ammo would sometimes shatter against the face-hardened armor of German tanks, even though it should have been penetrated easily if looked at the thickness. British preferred more ductile armor plate, and this was excellent against the earlier German projectiles which were designed to perform well against German face-hardened armour. The USA had the same problem later in the war when their new 76mm couldn't penetrate a Panther from the front, because they used a different type of armor for testing, resulting in ricochetting/shattering and lower penetration against German armor. This was later rectified, but this explains the poor initial performance of the M10 tankdestroyer and gave the British further motivation to continue to develop their 17-pdr (Which the Americans didn't want).

Early in the war British armor quality temporarily went down, it became less ductile (more brittle) and when impacted fragments could break loose on the inside of the tank ('spalling'), and these would often travel close to the speed of the impacting projectile. Same goes for riveted construction, when a hit on or near a rivet head it could shoot inside the inside of a tank. And all this even without penetration by the projectile.
An example of a toy on the same principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle

This is why I try to mention 'riveted armor construction', because it would offer less protection then welded plates, or cast armor. If armor was improperly fabricated, it would either be too soft or too hard (brittle). High hardness of armour is seen as good, but is dangerously close to brittleness, and that is a big negative factor in resistance, so poor fabrication processes could make hard armour worse than slightly too soft armour.

The British for a short time had problems making thicker plates, so they stacked a few thinner ones, but this decreases resistance when compared to a single plate of the same overall thickness. German armor started having problems as well, the thicker plates they made were hard to properly harden on the outer layer while remaining ductile enough, so their armor quality sometimes became a bit 'flaky', although not as bad as some sources suggest.Germans took thicker, ductile plates and only hardened the upper layer and had good QC, with fairly good results. The Soviets are renowned for their very hard armor on the early T34, which initially provided very good protection, but when heavier calibers/projectiles were introduced, the armor was more prone to shattering under impact, because it wouldn't 'bend' well, so it just cracked and big chunks would break of. Same principle if you hit armor with a very heavy, large, blunt projectile. Another example, Italian tank armor was bad because it was designed hard (=mostly good), but was actually quite brittle and riveted as well.

Ammunition

I mentioned it earlier, a lot of early high-velocity guns were initially relatively ineffective. Only when ammunition was improved (first with a blunt, soft cap (APC) to lessen the chance of ricochetting/shattering, than this coupled with a streamlined cover (ballistic cap - APCBC) for better long-range performance. Later sub-calibre projectiles were introduced, soft projectiles with a small, very hard 'penetrator', such as the rare German 'Hartkern' (hard-core). This evolved into SABOT, where the penetrator seperates when leaving the barrel, increasing its velocity. These early rounds usually only offered better penetration at shorter ranges, because the lightweight projectile lost velocity relatively quickly, and they were less accurate as well. So at long ranges the 'old-fashioned' ammo performed better, so even if this special ammo was available in huge numbers, vehicles would still use mixed types of AT ammo. Large calibre HEAT and APHE ammunition was also very effective against bunkers.

A note about availability, a lot of people take the German 'Hartkern' penetration figures to determine how good the 'gun' was, but Hartkern was mostly quite rare and not issued after 1943 for the bigger guns (75mm KwK 42 from the Panther and the 88mm guns), for smaller guns they were still used as they needed them to be effective against heavily armored opponents, although they became very rare for the 75mm PaK 40 and 75mm KwK 40. So I try to compare the most common issued rounds between nations, and because the British had plenty good ammo available later in the war their gun performance was relatively good. So that's why I think the 17-pdr HA=22 is defendable, although the 77mmHV is not. These different types of ammo can be used in the eqp file as changes in HA/SA, or as small boosts for SE units or dedicated AT units (which would have more AT shells, while tanks would have a more even distribution of ammo types). But SABOT or 'Hartkern' had reduced effecive range and accuracy, so if modelling a unit using nothing but that type of ammo (didn't happen, but let's assume) INI would have to go down a bit.

But while these fast, little projectiles all give impressive amounts of millimetres in armor penetration, if it penetrates, then what? If it starts bouncing around the inside of the tank, great, but if it punches a little hole in one side and exits through the other, not much will happen (read accounts of single crewmembers or radios being hit while the rest was unaffected). This is also why HEAT is good in penetration, but usually poor in after-armor effects, it just penetrates the tank with a small, liquid, metal 'jet'. Their are reports of light tanks and simple M113 armoured personnel carriers taking multiple RPG hits which just made small holes, while the vehicle was still operational afterwards.

If a slightly larger projectile hits, there is a bigger after-armor effect, even without penetration (spalling). If a projectile with explosive content and proper fusing gets into the tank, the results were far more devastating than a small solid projectile. But first it needed to penetrate, which it had more trouble to do, while the small solid one could often easily penetrate, but had little effect unless hitting vital parts on the inside. Also don't forget that on the outside, tanks have vulnerable parts which when hit might cause a mobility kill or disable the weapons. A bigger shell with some explosive filler is very capable of knocking out a tank without penetrating it. So, for example, if the running gear of a particular model is vulnerable, I think the GD value should be less than a similarly armoured tank without this vulnerability.

HE performance

Heavy artillery shells are very effective against tanks, the British 25-pdr light artillery (87mm) which was used in AT direct fire role against German tanks in the desert used HE shells with the fuse replaced by a hard tip to help against armor. This gave an average 63mm of penetration at 500m (30 degr. impact angle) and still 43mm at 1000m (30 degr). At 500m, this is slightly better than the 'long' German 50mm KwK, but at 1000m it was 10% less. But the long 50mm gun had far better chances of hitting, and a higher rate of fire. All these factors make putting numbers on these very different types of guns an interesting challenge.

HE performance when comparing calibers was usually less for high-velocity guns with the same projectile diameter, because the projectile needed to be stronger to withstand the shock of firing, and the fusing was more difficult. Stronger projectiles had much thicker casings, so less room for explosive filler. So designers sometimes use reduced propellant charges to make better HE projectiles and hope that the sighting equipment/crew/gun elevation could deal with the different trajectory.This was later done on the 17-pdr to improve HE performance. On very small guns the HE filling was usually too small for use as a field gun, but larger AT weapons and AAA could effectively be used as light artillery when firing HE ammunition.

Sorry for the off-topic, deducter. Looking forward to see what you did with the allied planes, I've been experimenting myself but I have not modeled a satisfactory set of values yet.

[guille1434]

ThvN: Excellent Info! I thank you a lot for you research efforts! No doubt, this info will help Deducter to improve his finely balance unit data!

[Razz1]

I'm sorry... I have had a few beers. Only read the first few sentences glad you agree about the Allies.
I can not remember. Where to you go to modify the initiative penalties?

Thanks


Edit:
Okay... read the whole thing. It's the average that we must use.

Did you know that a standard Sherman can penetrate a Panther or Tiger?

Now that you said Bullshit.. You must remember tactics.

Since the Allies weapons were useless they developed the tactics to win. They out numbered the German tanks 3 to 1, even more.

They would have two standard 75mm Shermans fire HE Ammo. After the hits a regular Sherman could have Dinner with an AP shell
This was proven at Normandy. If there was a Firefly around or improved Sherman with 76mm Long barrel... The German tanks were toast.

The heat made the armor so malleable that a 75mm could penetrate.

So now comes the Tactics. Can the German tank kill two Shermans before it is destroyed?

Soon afterwards the Germans ran out of raw materials that were used to harden armor.

This made the tanks even more vulnerable to Allied weapons.

So.. it comes down to modeling. Using a good average that is effective.

The problem with PC is: they increased the tank values to balance the game. Then the next tank had to be balanced. So on and so on. Then other units were out of wack like infantry and AT's So it was a never ending chase. So far the finished equipment file is pretty good but can be improved in areas.

[4kEY]

That was some good reading there, ThvN, thanks.

[ThvN]

I'm sorry... I have had a few beers. Only read the first few sentences glad you agree about the Allies.
I can not remember. Where to you go to modify the initiative penalties?

Thanks

Cheers. Although I've had a lot of spare time lately, I have prolonged sleep-deprivation due to some chronic illness, so I'm not exactly at my best, my apologies.

To clarify, it's hardcoded, AT class get +3 INI bonus when attacked by tanks/recon. So most AT units have -3 INI in the equipment file compared to tanks using the same gun. Deducter has explained that he modifies the INI on some AT units to balance them. I try to do the same, but I'm not sure what values are correct, so I just gave mine as an example. This is what makes balancing hard, the problems of using just a few values (INI, HA, GD, CD) to model one of the most complicated types of combat.

Did you know that a standard Sherman can penetrate a Panther or Tiger?

I hope you are asking a rhetorical question, sorry but my sarcasm detector/sense of humor is a bit broken lately. [Rant modus engaged] Panther was introduced because they were cheaper, more cost-effective than the Panzer IV, not because there were some super-tank, but everyone thinks it is some kind of mini-Tiger II. Even some mud/snow freezing up between all those overlapping roadwheels could immobilize them, making them as good as useless sometimes. So, yes of course, Shermans could take them out, Panther or Tiger could even be penetrated by anti-tank rifles if hit in the right place, just like they could be taken out by a bottle of gasoline and a match. Speaking of bottles, I need to check my supply of wodka...

Shermans are not bad tanks, nor am I completely ignorant of the weaknesses of German tank design, but the Sherman's 75mm gun was below average in armor penetrating performance in 1944, and the 76mm was introduced (with a lot of opposition!) to make it competitive against the newer Panzers. The 75mm wasn't a bad gun, the British largely replaced the 6-pdr (57mm) by the similar QF 75mm although the 57mm had a lot more penetration performance. They knew what they were doing. They offered their 17-pdr, complete with mounting for in the Sherman, to the Americans, who refused it.

As for the Sherman, the 'new' 76mm just performed below expectations (just like the later 90mm in 1945) until better ammo was introduced, so even now it gets repeated endlessy how bad Shermans were against this-and-that Panzer and how the actually-no-longer-in-production German ammo had XXXXmm peformance and how the KwK L48 was so much better than KwK L43 (not...), this is how myths are formed. And whenever I detect a hint of myths, I get a bit uncomfortable, hence my elaborate responses. Because I don't want to be 'that' person that repeats those same myths. So I hope I managed to give a fair and reasonable assessment of the capabilities of the allied units, I want Deducter to improve his mod to his liking, not enforce my opinions on others.

Now that you said Bullshit.. You must remember tactics.

Since the Allies weapons were useless they developed the tactics to win. They out numbered the German tanks 3 to 1, even more.

They would have two standard 75mm Shermans fire HE Ammo. After the hits a regular Sherman could have Dinner with an AP shell
This was proven at Normandy. If there was a Firefly around or improved Sherman with 76mm Long barrel... The German tanks were toast.

The heat made the armor so malleable that a 75mm could penetrate.

So now comes the Tactics. Can the German tank kill two Shermans before it is destroyed?

Fireflies/76mm Shermans were ideal in the bocage, just like bazookas and panzerfausts. The Sherman 'Jumbo' was excellent, and that had the 'obsolete' 75mm gun... Allied weapons were not useless, just less glamorous; but they got the job done. Terrain dictates tactics, at the same time, towed heavy antitank guns were considered useless in the bocage, although they were the same guns that were mounted in those Fireflies and Shermans. Later, in more open terrain, things evened out.

Odd question, but what do you mean by Bullshit? I hope I did not come across as some Panzer-fanboy, and I always take critism (too) seriously , but a little more specific please? I'm not sure about your experiences/sources, but you don't need to heat up (?) a Panzer's armor, just distract it/blind it (like you said, by firing HE/Smoke/White Phosphorus at it, shocking/blinding the crew and disabling the delicate sighting equipment, or reducing mobility) and use the superior allied mobility/numbers to outflank and fire at that nice, thin rear/side armor.

At shorter ranges, almost anything will be lethal, even when fired at the frontal armour. Even the worst AP projectile for the Sherman could penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at point-blank range, same as the 'under-powered' Soviet 76mm gun on the T34. When ranges are short, anything can be lethal, the shortest-ranged and cheapest weapon of all was responsible for the most tank kills (the landmine).

As an analogy, most infantrymen perish not because of snipers (who, shot-for-shot have the highest kill ratio, use very specialized equipment and seem to have developed some weirdly obsessive fanbase), but the vast majority of deaths is because of cheap and simple mortars and machineguns, operated by people who almost never saw their targets directly. Yet everyone keeps trying to model snipers in the game. The troops that did the 'bread-and-butter' work get relatively little attention it seems. I call it the 'Jagdtiger syndrome', sure, they were impressive machines, but the numbers don't lie (or rather, they do, when you look at how much is written about them). But when I try to dig up some accurate information about how a common British tank (over 8.000 produced!) performed, I get almost zero usable information, and worse, a lot of internet opinions which can be summarized as 'they were crap, right?'. No they weren't, but apparently anything that won't 'win' in a head-to-head duel with a 'squeeze-bore, Schmallturm equipped Panther X' is not interesting enough. Sorry. [disengage rant modus]

Soon afterwards the Germans ran out of raw materials that were used to harden armor.

This made the tanks even more vulnerable to Allied weapons.

So.. it comes down to modeling. Using a good average that is effective.

The problem with PC is: they increased the tank values to balance the game. Then the next tank had to be balanced. So on and so on. Then other units were out of wack like infantry and AT's So it was a never ending chase. So far the finished equipment file is pretty good but can be improved in areas.

Thank you, this really needs to be said. The stock equipment file is certainly not bad, but like I said earlier, it has some anomalies. Some units, it seems, -must- be superior, so they get better stats than they deserve, and others get off relatively worse as a result. The discussions about the usefullness of infantry in the later DLC's, and Deducters determination in keeping them useful but not overpowering is a shining example of this issue. Also consider that the AI (within its own limitations) has to be able to use the unit effectively (see the troubles with recon units, fighters, and now the switchable units), and a unit can get unbalanced quickly. Adding a longer barrel to an icon to model an Achilles 17-pdr is a twelve minute job , but balancing the stats for that same unit can take many hours. If I managed to save a little bit of deducters time with my summaries, I'm happy.

Now, I'm off to relocate a few pixels on my nearly-finished Panzer 35(t) icon, I might even finish the thing this year in this tempo. Happy modding.

[orlinos]

News from the front – after finishing Stalingrad Docks (an MV, but much better, than the last playthrough – I only lacked Pavlov’s House to get a DV) I decided to commit suicide and try the escape path. I am glad to report I did just fine and scored two DV’s!

Before I kissed myself on the forehead for it, I remembered, that I did have a lot of prestige and so was able to overstrength lots of units. A nasty habit, since it won’t be so easy in 1943.

Deducter, I watched your video of “Escape…” only after finishing my play and it’s funny, since I used the same tactic – bought Bridge Engineers and crossed the river in the south part of the map.

BRIDGE ENGINEERS

By the way, how often do everyone use Bridge Units? I like these guys, but it seems to me, they are usually unnecessary. Although it’s just possible that my play is very formulaic and that is why I don’t search for good uses.

I did once find an interesting use for them in Eben-Emael scenario. I made a Bridge in the south, to cross to Liege. It allowed me to capture it without any possibility of AI going on last minute shopping spree. Also, it made most of the infantry, that usually harassed me in the north, to travel south. It took a lot time to finish them off, since the bridging group was be very small – but I was in no hurry and could easily conquer the northern part of the map.

ESCAPE FROM STALINGRAD

Back to Escape from Stalingrad! With strong panzer groups (2 Marders, 2 StuG’s, 3 IIIL’s (incl. two SE), a Panzer IVG with Defense+2 hero, KV-B, a captured T-34/41 and a Sherman tank), I used mostly defensive tactics, using hills to great advantage. My tactical bombers did not have enough fuel to travel far, but they helped me immensely when the action took place close to airports. The HS 129 is a beast, when used correctly (far away from AA, to not bleed off overstrenght).

I admit I spend some of my prestige to normal reinforce an auxiliary T-34, since it got reduced to 3 strength and I was not sure if I would save 7 auxiliary units to get a DV – I ended up with 8 or 9. I also used some reinforcements on the auxiliary KV, which prevented the AI from crossing the river in the middle.

I ended up with little losses – the most stupid was reducing one of my Marders from 13 to 8 strength – I forgot, that when the AI begins the turn, the weather changes on AI’s turn, not my own. I forgot to use fighter cover...

TATSINSKAYA

It’s a very ugly scenario and a scary one. Again, I would probably be in a world of pain, if not for having much overstrength. I was only planning to get an MV and at the beginning I let the AI conquer most of the objectives. I built heavy resistance in the middle of the map, including my +4 Ini Grenadiers in the forest close to Zhirnov – as predicted, the AI sent quite a few of the heaviest tanks there in close terrain. Heh, heh, heh…

The south had a smaller force, reinforced by the auxiliary Tiger.

In the north, close to Litvinovka, I put my Paratroopers, +2 Ini Pionieres, an auxiliary Char B, all of them protected by a single 21 cm Nblwf 42. Before, I didn’t appreciate this unit and preferred the weaker version, for more ammo. It can be a nice defensive tool, when supplemented by airforce (to kill the deadly Katyushas) or some longer ranged artillery. Small amount of ammo means it will use most of it on AI’s turn and will immediately have to be resupplied. It has great SA and, unlike its younger brother, decent HA – so it can effectively defend the armor on the flanks or StuG’s in close terrain.

I was doing surprisingly fine and decided to press my luck and march forward – or rather East, to Nicholaev. The southern group, now tiny - since much of it got transferred elsewhere - would march straight to Lubyanoy. The northern, small group, would encircle the northern part of the map and hit Morozovsk from the top. Now, they did great, since at this point they met with no opposition.

The rest of my force went East and it was ugly, again. I should have guessed, that the AI will have some trick’s up its sleeve – and will sent last pieces of heavy armor on me.

What happened, was as much luck as skill, or rather more luck than the brains. My soldiers still shiver, when they think of it. Veteran infantry being sent in the open, to protect more expensive units, because I did not take proper positions. A 14-strength Do 217E bomber, losing 6 strength points, because I forgot to escort it - it will be hell to pay for it in 1943. A heavily wounded 88 FlaK, bravely attacking KV and T-34/43 from the wood hex (it had some artillery protection, but it would be toast, if Guards got there in time)…

It was all an OK plan at the beginning of the scenario but turned into frantic improvisation in the end. It will cost me much, since I had to elite reinforce few units during the scenario: a green Focke-Wulf (at some point AI planes seemed to have developed a fashion of attacking it; I e-reinforced it, since I wanted to train it as much as I could, before 193); a Stug IIIF – it got attacked by T-34/43, had no artillery protection and was reduced to 3 points – it would probably die if I did not reinforce it and I wanted to preserve the experience).

The scenario was exhilarating and I don’t regret any of it. Should have planned it better, but I’m glad my improvisational skill are developing.

I will have to spend much prestige in the first scenario of 1943, since many other units sustained heavy casualties – and I lost one Sherman tank. Still, I have almost 15.000 prestige, so I should be fine even after all reinforcements.

I learned and used a lot prestige saving techniques – in the playthrough before this, I used the same prestige limits (Rommel in 1939-1940, -30% in 1941 and -20% in 1942) but ended with only 3.000.

I used an “expensive but cautious” Stuka, along with a “cheap and brave” one. When I invested in Bf 109F fighters, I left two, than only one Bf 109E – and ensured it always had full overstrength. It’s a great bomber killer, although with small fuel reserves. I’ll monitor how the brand new Focke-Wulf will be doing now.

Few select tanks having full overstrength – mostly the SE ones – do save prestige, as long as I don’t put them into unnecessary risk. The Marders are even better candidates – as long as I remember to hide them somewhere save during bad weather or heavy infantry infestation.

Other lessons learned– Sturmapanzer I and especially II are quite useful, but only when protecting infantry (and, rarely, an occasional AT in close terrain). Especially the II version is great due to 5 ammo. Still, it’s no wonder weapon, since it’s HA is very low. It can’t be well used to protect the flanks in open terrain, like the Wurfrahmen or SU-122 can.

And now, after this long rant, I should get some sleep!

[deducter]

Due to the large number of changes and my limited time, progress on this mod has been delayed. No promises, but I really do hope to come out with v1.9 in another few days.

For now, here's a preview of some air units:

1. American and British Fighters Summary
i. Stats
P-38G Lightning ammo = 7 fuel = 90 INI = 9 SA = 2 HA = 1 AA = 15 GD = 21 AD = 19
P-40E Kittyhawk ammo = 5 fuel = 55 INI = 8 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 17 GD = 22 AD = 19
P-51B Mustang ammo = 8 fuel = 141 INI = 12 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 15 GD = 24 AD = 22
P-47B Thunderbolt ammo = 4 fuel = 45 INI = 10 SA = 4 HA = 6 AA = 19 GD = 22 AD = 21
P-47D Thunderbolt ammo = 5 fuel = 55 INI = 11 SA = 4 HA = 6 AA = 19 GD = 23 AD = 22
Spitfire Mk. VB ammo = 5 fuel = 47 INI = 8 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 17 GD = 22 AD = 19
Spitfire Mk. IX ammo = 5 fuel = 44 INI = 10 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 17 GD = 23 AD = 20
Spitfire MK. XIV ammo = 5 fuel = 46 INI = 12 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 17 GD = 24 AD = 21
Tempest Mk. V ammo = 5 fuel = 83 INI = 12 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 20 GD = 23 AD = 22
Meteor MK. III ammo = 5 fuel = 43 INI = 15 SA = 1 HA = 1 AA = 20 GD = 24 AD = 23

ii. The P-38G Lightning is the first Allied long-ranged fighter, although its dogfighting capabilities are somewhat lacking. The P-40E Kittyhawk is heavily armed, but slow and vulnerable. Both these fighters should not present much of a challenge for the Bf 109G or the Fw 190A. However, they will both be upgraded to more potent models automatically in 1944.

The P-51B Mustang is a potent Allied long-range fighter. Its firepower is somewhat lacking, but it more than makes up for that with its superior speed and survivability. The P-47 Thunderbolt has superb firepower and excellent survivability, in addition to very good ground-attack capabilities. However, its range is nowhere near as impressive as that of the Mustang. These fighters are deadly foes and caution should be used when engaging them.

The upgraded Spitfires remain deadly foes into 1942 and beyond. The Temptest Mk. V is a heavily armed, agile fighter capable of shooting down any German plane, even a Me 262 on a good day. And the Meteor is the only operational Allied jet fighter, a direct challenge to the Me 262.

1. Western Allies Strategic Bombers Summary:
i. Stats
B-17F ammo = 8 fuel = 150 INI = 5 SA = 22 HA = 14 AA = -15 GD = 26 AD = 21
B-17G ammo = 8 fuel = 150 INI = 4 SA = 22 HA = 14 AA = -17 GD = 27 AD = 22
B-24 Liberator ammo = 10 fuel = 200 INI = 4 SA = 25 HA = 16 AA = -15 GD = 25 AD = 19
Lancaster ammo = 9 fuel = 130 INI = 3 SA = 21 HA = 13 AA = -15 GD = 26 AD = 20

ii. The B-17 Flying Fortress is a very tough bomber with excellent firepower and very long range. It is highly resistant to attack by both fighters and FlaK. The B-24 Liberator has an even more impressive bomb load than the B-17, but its defenses are lower. The Lancaster, while somewhat weaker than the B-17, is still a formidable heavy bomber. All of these Allied bombers are very dangerous and pack plenty of anti-air defenses, so that they can shoot down some attacking fighters.

2. Western Allies tactical bombers Summary:
i. Stats
B-25B Mitchell ammo = 5 fuel = 51 INI = 4 SA = 7 HA = 8 AA = -8 GD = 21 AD = 18
B-25H Mitchell ammo = 5 fuel = 51 INI = 4 SA = 9 HA = 10 AA = -10 GD = 21 AD = 18
B-26C Marauder ammo = 6 fuel = 115 INI = 3 SA = 8 HA = 7 AA = -14 GD = 25 AD = 19
A-26 Invader ammo = 5 fuel = 70 INI = 7 SA = 10 HA = 12 AA = -14 GD = 22 AD = 18
Mosquito Mk. VI ammo = 5 fuel = 111 INI = 9 SA = 5 HA = 5 AA = 17 GD = 22 AD = 20
Typhoon Mk. IB ammo = 7 fuel = 51 INI = 10 SA = 9 HA = 7 AA = 14 GD = 22 AD = 19
Hurricane Mk. IID ammo = 5 fuel = 46 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 10 AA = 10 GD = 21 AD = 17

ii. The B-25 Mitchell is an excellent ground attack craft capable of inflicting good damage, but has relatively short range. The B-26 Maraduer was a medium-altitude bomber, so while its attack is not as impressive as the other Allied ground attack planes, it has superior defense against AA fire. The A-26 Invader is a very powerful ground attack plane but debuts late in the war. The Mosquito Mk. VI is a deadly fighter-bomber, with the capability of shooting down intercepting German fighters. The Typhoon Mk. IB is a good anti-soft ground attack plane, while the Hurricane Mk. IID is a good anti-hard ground attack plane. Most of the Allied TAC bombers, with the exception of the Mosquito, are vulnerable to fighter interception.

[monkspider]

Well, I finally finished 1945. I suppose I take some measure of pride in being the only person I have seen post who managed to complete an entire campaign using your mod Herr Deducter. 1945 was not a good year for the Wehrmacht however, while I still managed to use elite replacements a majority of the time in '44, by 1945, it was clear that I could no longer make good my losses. I had to use normal replacements more and more. Moreover, I had more and more units destroyed outright. I tended to use Volksturm/7.5 artillery to fill in the gaps in my core, but they were generally little more than speedbumps for the Russians. One of my greatest victories was getting both of the prototype "mice", but by the start of the Berlin two of my divisions, the 40th Infantry and 9th Panzer were hollow shells of what they once were. The 9th Panzer was pretty much a panzer division with scarcely any remaining panzers (only one panzer unit remained) and my 40th Infantry was pretty much only a division on paper, consisting of 1 infantry unit, an anti-tank gun, and a single artillery. My 1st SS division still remained largely intact and largely managed to avoid the quality dilution that my other units did. My strategy in Berlin was to try to create a strong defensive line that would exhaust the Soviets and then go on the offensive to retake lost ground. This proved too much for my core however, and as my losses mounted, including even some of my most crack units, I had to fallback further and further. By turn 29 I only had maybe 12-15 units left, and decided that further resistance was futile, signing the formal surrender papers with an endscn 2.

Overall, a very satisfying and realistic end to the campaign. This time my core may not have been strong enough to stop the Soviet steamroller but perhaps next time I will prevail. Thanks for your awesome work with this mod Deducter, I look forward to starting another playthrough soon!