M4s & Shermans

[JaM2013]

read somewhere K.Gr.rot.Pz had bigger explosive filler, therefore was more destructive after penetration. increased penetration for later rounds was result of smaller explosive filler, but thicker shell that had higher kinetic energy.

[JagdpanzerIV]

yeah, it had more explosive, (as opposed to the L43 and L48) but as far as my reading goes, there was never an improved ammo for the L24 other than the new HEAT. It fired K.Gr.rot Pz. all along.

[JaM2013]

i read somewhere that even PzIVF2 used K.Gr.rot Pz initially, until they received better ammo..

Anyway, back to my fighter design, i made some calculations for fighter weapons, putting together rate of fire, muzzle speed and potential damage, and actually got quite interesting results.. in my formula i'm dividing muzzle speed by 1000, to get accuracy value. Then take ROF and divide it by 10, and multiply it with accuracy value. afterward final value is multiplied by damage potential, where 7.62-7.92mm is 0.25; 12.7-13mm is 1, 15mm is 2 (explosive shell), 20mm is 4 and 30mm is 6.

For example, with this calculation, there is not that much difference between BF109E and BF109F in terms of AA - yes, Emil had 2x20mm cannons, and 2x 7.92 machine guns, but it used MG-FF cannons with lower rate of fire (520rpm) and low muzzle velocity (600m/s) while Fritz initially used single 15mm MG151/15, with rate of fire 700-750 rpm, and muzzle velocity 850m/s - so technically, pilot got more rounds on target with MG151/15 as its burst had more projectiles flying one after another, while Emil even having two, fired them simultaneously at longer periods, with a bit more curved trajectory which was not optimal against fast moving enemy fighters..

This also explain while late variants of Fritz (F-4 onward) got just single MG151/20 for improved firepower (750rpm, 700m/s)

my effectivity ratings for MG-FF was 2.2 and 2.5 for MG-FF/M, where MG151/15 had 3 and MG151/20 had 3.4. Comparatively Hispano II 20mm had 3.5, Russian ShVAK 3.9, Berezin B-20 had 4...
30mm MK103 just 3.6 and 30mm MK108 only 3.2 - MK103 suffers because of low rate of fire, while MK108 due to low velocity - both were very destructive but were not that good against enemy fighters. American .50cal AN/M2 had 1.2; Russian 12.7 UB had 1.4, German MG131 had 1.1 and 12.7 SAFAT 0.9. MG17 and .303 had 0.4 while Russian ShKAS 0.6

Its quite interesting to find Russian air weapons come as most effective in term of fire power, but i didnt take into account weapon weight which downplays them down (probably i should) Yet it makes sense why they used just 2x ShVAK or 3x B-20 for their LA-5FN/LA-7 frontline fighters - that armament was very effective in dogfights, but those planes had limited ammo.. at the same time American heavy batteries of 6-8 AN/M2 .50cal HMGs has also its charm in a dogfights..

[JagdpanzerIV]

videos you might find interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y ... TUVBAZxlmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrW ... TUVBAZxlmA

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[JaM2013]

JagdpanzerIV: yeah, actually, BF109 in my stats gets quite high air defense because of its performance, while P51 tops its only because of its speed and armor.. difference is single point in favor of P-51 (19 vs 20).. so practically, Kurt version is able to get head on with P-51 without issues.

anyway, with the fighters, i don't want to assess the planes only by their maneuverability alone. most successful tactics was "zoom and boom" attacking enemy from a dive, fire at him and get away at full speed..95% of shotdowns in WW2 were in situation when defeated plane didn't even see from where attack came.. so air speed, climb rate, power to weight ratio, were all quite important in this. Its the main reason why P-51 and P-47 were so successful over Europe.

and regarding Panthers vs Shermans, i think battle of Arracourt shows how actual stats mean nothing in real life. If you manage to outmaneuver the enemy even technically inferior tanks (M4A3 with 75mm gun) can wipe out units equipped with Panthers.. Personally, i think that is what this game misses the most - bonus for outmaneuvering the enemy..

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[JaM2013]

not true, majority of tanks were destroyed in tank battle, US lost 25 Shermans, Germans 80 tanks out of which half were Panthers.. During battle was bad weather so no plane could support american tanks.. Only plane in the air was Bazooka Charlie flying L-4 plane with few bazookas attached on wings... P-47s could fly again September 21th... Yet, even then typical air support was actually not that effective, numbers of destroyed tanks reported was greatly exaggerated, in reality only 1/10 of all reported hits were actually true...

from wiki:

Poor tactical deployment of the German tanks soon exposed their weaker side armor to Shermans which flanked and knocked out 11 panzers using the fog as cover. As 5th Panzer Army was not equipped with integral scouting units, the Germans were forced to advance blindly against the Americans, whose positions were shrouded in thick morning fog.[3] Reinforced with additional tank, infantry, and cavalry elements, and aided by the Germans' persistence in repeating the same plan of attack, CCA was able to locate and prepare for battle on ground of its own choosing.[3] A combination of concealed defensive positions, command of local terrain elevations, and adroit fire-and-maneuver tactics allowed CCA to negate the superior armor and firepower of the German AFVs.[3][7] While the advancing Germans were continually exposed to American fire, U.S. armor was able to maneuver into favorable defensive positions, staying hidden until the German armor had closed to within effective range then inflicting heavy casualties. The fog that had allowed German forces tactical surprise and protection from U.S. air attack also negated the superior range of their tank guns.[

Of the 262 tanks and assault guns deployed by the German units in the week of fighting near Arracourt, 86 were destroyed, 114 were damaged or broken down, and only 62 were operational at the end of the month. The 4th Armored Division's Combat Command A, which had borne the brunt of the 5th Panzer Army's counter-offensive at Arracourt, lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers.[1] As a division, the 4th AD lost some 41 M4 medium tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks during the whole month of September, with casualties of 225 killed and 648 wounded.

I would guess that majority of "air kills" would be between those 114 damaged vehicles.. overall, they practically lost 200 tanks in a week of fighting...

So i repeat - Arracourt is a perfect example how technically less equipped force can defeat stronger enemy... with proper maneuvering

[JagdpanzerIV]

(...)
and regarding Panthers vs Shermans, i think battle of Arracourt shows how actual stats mean nothing in real life. If you manage to outmaneuver the enemy even technically inferior tanks (M4A3 with 75mm gun) can wipe out units equipped with Panthers.. Personally, i think that is what this game misses the most - bonus for outmaneuvering the enemy..

that's why i proposed the hex system where 3 is a frontal attack, 2 are flank attack with GD cut in half, 1 a rear attack with GD cut in half and CD 0. (probably with initiative close to 0 as well)

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[JagdpanzerIV]

not true, (...)

Personally as a ww2 gamer, what interest me is the real stats of a tank, not how cleverly or poorly run and manned it was.
Clearly Arracourt or most battles after Kursk, the 3rd Reich had lost the initiative and their air farce was on the verge of collapsing.
Not only that, it had to deal with shortage of fuel and ammunition constantly, something the U.S. Army had in vast quantity.

So what matters to me is, given equal chances and equally skilled crew, which tank or which group of tank would perform best. Again, flanking is always the best tactic for destroying tanks, so it should be employed whenever it can be. All tanks are completely vulnerable once their flank is exposed.

[JaM2013]

GiveWarAchance: of course it does, yet its not just about unit experience per say, but also in quality of command.. Aracourt is good example of US command outsmarting the Germans. They managed to flank the German tank units, attack them from unexpected locations, move quickly around, use fog to own advantage, etc etc... All im saying its not the hardware that was dominating, but the men who used it.

and regarding experience stars, i think their impact could be slightly smaller, as 5 star units are practically steamrollers.. add 3 heroes to it and you can wipe out enemy unit in a single attack quite easily. problem is, heroes are randomly generated, therefore you might get some very strange combinations sometimes.. this is why im thinking about upping the unit stats scale, so those values wont dis-balance the units that much.. (imagine getting +3 attack on all three heroes... even PzII would be capable destroying enemy tanks with ease, yet that tank had no chance in hell killing enemy tanks)

[JaM2013]

not true, (...)

Personally as a ww2 gamer, what interest me is the real stats of a tank, not how cleverly or poorly run and manned it was.
Clearly Arracourt or most battles after Kursk, the 3rd Reich had lost the initiative and their air farce was on the verge of collapsing.
Not only that, it had to deal with shortage of fuel and ammunition constantly, something the U.S. Army had in vast quantity.

So what matters to me is, given equal chances and equally skilled crew, which tank or which group of tank would perform best. Again, flanking is always the best tactic for destroying tanks, so it should be employed whenever it can be. All tanks are completely vulnerable once their flank is exposed.

which is why I even mentioned 30 degree off angle protection values in the first place.. statistically, 75% of destroyed Soviet tanks during WW2 were hit from 30-40 degrees to the side (left or right) turret.. which was the main reason why Soviets developed tank turret with the strongest parts precisely in that area, and weakened zone on the front..

http://i030.radikal.ru/1108/38/ad9b8af1610c.jpg

[JagdpanzerIV]

doing math for GD with (my formula) armor vs GD with (your formula main body) + turret (your formula), gives roughly similar result, and in some cases makes the already tough tanks, even tougher. For example, tiger 2 turret got a 100mm thick mantlet + 180mm or armor for a total of 280mm, thats just insane.

[JaM2013]

but thats the nature of that armor.. shots seldom came at a tank from perfect 0 degree direction.. that would be the case maybe when firing at defending tank, but again, as mentioned several times, it would be a suicide attacking these beasts frontally, allied tankers usually tried to outflank heavily defended positions, so side armor would be in danger more than front armor.. yet still 80mm side armor is exceptional armor for WW2.. and if you look at T34/85, its turret was also 80mm thick, which makes a T34/85 a challenger to a Panther in terms of protection - while Panther had to be very careful not get outflanked, T34/85 was more forgiving in that regard, even if its frontal protection was not as good (for hull at least, front turret was relatively close to Panther's level.)

Anyway with Tiger II, front turet profile is quite small. 30degree off-angle hit would have high chance hitting side turret at 60degree than hitting front turret at 30.. so technically, i would use an average value with front armor @ 30 and 2x side armor @60 (both sides) Oh, and btw, only very small area actually overlapped with the front armor.. so 100mm thick mantlet was only overlapping just few centimeters, while everywhere else, there was just the mantlet and not the turret armor.. its same with Tiger E - it had 120mm mantlet, but it was quite small area. majority of front turret was just 100mm thick. (there was no overlap of mantlet and turret armor on Tiger E)

[JaM2013]

anyway, for experience impact, i think GD increase should be just marginal for tanks, as while highly skilled crew would pick the best position for attack against the enemy, it should not be equivalent of having a lot thicker armor.. technically, best you can hope with positioning is to get your tank into slight oblique position towards enemy so his hits will hit you at 40-45 degrees (more than 45 would result in side armor hits) so max increase shouldn't be bigger than 20-30%, so let say GD bonus could be just 50 instead of 100 for tanks.

Similarly, Soft attack could be also restricted to 50 per star, with only HA having full bonus.

[JagdpanzerIV]

here is an example;

Tiger 1, Body: F= 100@10, S= 80, Turret: F= 100@8 + (100mm mantlet/2), S= 80
Tiger 2, Body: F= 150@50, S=80@25, Turret: F= 180@9 + (100mm mantlet/2), S= 80@21

Maths:

Tiger 1, 101,543@30 = (117,251 + 80@60 x2 = 320) /3 = 145,75 (body rating)
F(100,983 + 50)@30 = 174,34 S= 80@60 x2 = 320, (320+174,34) / 3 = 164,78 (turret rating)
total, 146 + 165 = 311
GD in game = 23

Tiger 2 (body) F= 150@50@30 = 269,459 S= 80@25@60 x2 = 353,081 T= (269,459+353,081)/3 = 207,513
(turret) F= 180+50@30 = 265,581 S= 80@21@60 x2 = 342,766 T= (265,581+342,766) /3 = 202,782
Total, 208 + 203 = 411
GD in game = 26

311/411 = 0,757
Tiger 1 GD 23/0,757 = 30,382

so Tiger 2 GD rating should be 30.

But GD 30 is absolutely very tough to crack, unless using strategic bombers to bring their ammo and fuel to 0
- especially if 76mm Sherman guns HA is reduced to 14 instead of 19.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[JaM2013]

i actually use a bit different math for this. I'm using sector averages based on impact angle - extreme side hit (30 degree) that goes against the side armor, combined with 0 impact angle for front armor. So its practically average for worst protection for 30 degree off-angle hit

So let say Tiger I has hull = Hull Front 100 +Side 80@60 = 100+160=260
turret is = Turret Front 110 + Side 80@60 = 110+160 =270
Summed together260+270/4 =132.5 = 133 armor rating.

Then i check my armor table, where:

20-25 = 6
30-35 = 7
40-45 = 8
50-55 = 9
60-65 = 10
70-75 = 11
80-85 = 12
90-95 = 13
100-105=14
110-115=15
120-125=16
130-135=17
140-145=18
150-155=19
160-165=20
170-175=21
180-185=22
190-195=23
200-205=24

(im rounding the values if they are over x5, so 65 goes to 10, but 66 goes to 11)

So, with this system, I got:

PzIIIF GD 8, PzIIIH GD 9; PzIIIL GD 10;PzIVD GD 7; PzIVE GD 8; PzIVG GD 9; PzIVH GD 10
T34/76(41) GD 13; T34/76(43) GD 14; T34/85 GD 15;
Panther D GD 15; Panther G GD 16
M4A1 GD 13;M4A1(76)W GD 14; M4A3 GD 13; M4A3(76)W GD 14;M4A3E2 GD 23
King Tiger GD 22; M26 Pershing GD 18; M36 GMC GD 10 and of course Tiger I GD 17.

[JagdpanzerIV]

maths for your example using Tiger 2 (using the numbers i posted above) = 190,99 GD 23
you decided not to double the sides ? (x2) (you also removed the mantlet out of the equation)

anyways, your system has merits, but overall i would say it applies largely when a tank could not destroy an enemy tank frontally, so flanking was required, essential even. which was the case vs german cats or JS2. Most heavy tanks were misused, crews were green or noobs, not a clue what they were doing (or deployed in an area which was not suited for them). But if you use a tiger 2 efficiently, with plenty of fuel and infantry support, it becomes almost unstoppable - or i imagine it would be. We can't really look at what happened in 44+ because the german army was in disarray, was short on fuel, veterans, munitions etc. they also had a nightmarish logistic, and often they had to move during night time to avoid allies aircrafts which had total domination over the sky. Again, for gamers, we have to give both sides an equal chance, we can't say, for example, all the shots incoming at your tigers/tigers 2 are side shots, because they are isolated and outflanked. No! because we, as the commanders, will not let this happens...

tigers and other cats, did not need to flank anything to get kills. for example, (a single tiger taking out 30+ t-34s, the tiger was hit 67 times)
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/04/staudeggers-run/