Slitherine

more than with the mantled+turret? seems strange, would expect it to be lower

JaM2013 wrote:more than with the mantled+turret? seems strange, would expect it to be lower

i changed the multiplier to stay within range.

otherwise i get
t34 - 12
t1 - 19
t2 - 26

JagdpanzerIV wrote:if towed artillery got 7 ammo, heck a spg with same caliber gun should carry less,

I agree. The US GMC155 in particular is unbalanced by having greater mobility, permanent combat readiness and almost double the ammo of a towed gun. The Soviet SPArt at least has very low ammo which partly offsets the armour and mobility and it is still worth considering a few towed guns to maintain defence or to provide greater availability of attacking fire. For game balance (and often for historical accuracy) most SP Art should have less ammo than towed equivalent.

Historically SP guns had limited ammo storage compared with the truck, often a limber and quite likely a few extra ammo trucks. Towed units also typically had access to ammo dumps so high ammo count makes sense. SPArt generally had limited space and being mobile could not benefit from ammo dumps. Some big SP guns (GPF194 and CH280) had separate ammo vehicles because on board stowage was so low, and I have seen reports that the main complaint about the Bishop was it's poor on-board ammo capacity.

i agree.
the Bishop had something like 32 ammo. So 6 ammo in game would be fair.

and another issue is the range of arty and SPart vehicles... There should be a clear difference between guns, gun-howitzers and howitzers range wise, while any SPGs should definitely not have same range as towed howitzers. for example Soviet ISU-152 was only able to fire up to 3500m with panoramatic sight, yet it was only seldomly used in combat, and these vehicles usually rather get closer and attacked targets with direct fire, than waste limited ammo with indirect fire (they carried just 13 HE and 7AP rounds)

So, i think gun/gun-howitzers with range over 15km should get the range 4, all howitzers with range between 10-15km range 3, howitzers with range of 5-10km range 2, and everything else range 1 (0). Light towed infantry guns could just get better mobility instead (move2), while medium pieces (105mm) could get different movement type, so they will only make 2 hexes in clear terrain, while light arty could be moving 2H without restrictions (mountain artillery).

Heavy towed pieces should definitely have a bit more ammo, which would greatly increase game difficulty making defensive positions much more resilient.. especially with heavy gun-howitzers, which would also make them more interesting to use, and still be relevant when deployed somewhere. It would also make recon that much more important, to be able fully use that long range of your artillery...

JaM2013 wrote:

I think GD could use standard NATO classification for tank armor instead, where value of 30 degrees is taken into consideration (protection +-30 degrees from the front is taken, for both front, while side hull value is increased by 60(?) degrees, which simulates standard tank facing and fire incoming from +-30 degrees from center.)

btw, Russian statistics from WW2 show that 75% of destroyed tanks were hit with fire incoming at cca 30-35degrees, while majority hits were into turret.. which was main reason why post-war Russian tanks got turrets with armor strongest at the 30-35 degree from center. (T64,T72 and T80 all use this approach)

do you have a link to this NATO calculus?

JaM2013 wrote:and another issue is the range of arty and SPart vehicles... There should be a clear difference between guns, gun-howitzers and howitzers range wise, while any SPGs should definitely not have same range as towed howitzers. for example Soviet ISU-152 was only able to fire up to 3500m with panoramatic sight, yet it was only seldomly used in combat, and these vehicles usually rather get closer and attacked targets with direct fire, than waste limited ammo with indirect fire (they carried just 13 HE and 7AP rounds)

So, i think gun/gun-howitzers with range over 15km should get the range 4, all howitzers with range between 10-15km range 3, howitzers with range of 5-10km range 2, and everything else range 1 (0). Light towed infantry guns could just get better mobility instead (move2), while medium pieces (105mm) could get different movement type, so they will only make 2 hexes in clear terrain, while light arty could be moving 2H without restrictions (mountain artillery).

Heavy towed pieces should definitely have a bit more ammo, which would greatly increase game difficulty making defensive positions much more resilient.. especially with heavy gun-howitzers, which would also make them more interesting to use, and still be relevant when deployed somewhere. It would also make recon that much more important, to be able fully use that long range of your artillery...

good points.
Although my opinion on artillery is somehow like this;
the game is called panzer corps, and the focus should be on tank. The main role of artillery should be to suppress enemy units, and not destroy them, especially tanks. In PzC artillery is way too effective. Overall i feel like artillery should have his SA and HA reduced by 2 or 3. Same for dive bombers, HA reduced by 2-3. hitting a tank with rockets or a bomb, was more luck than anything else.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/

it was effective at destroying soft targets, supply lines and so on, but not tanks per say. Although a tank without supply is pretty ineffective.

one of simpler solutions that might help is to remove exp HA bonus from artillery, and leave it only gain SA bonus.. together with decrease of HA across the board for all indirect arty (but not for direct fire SPG of course) it could have quite interesting results.

anyway back to Shermans, its very strange how they are perceived by people, yet T34 is never criticized, anyway if you do the direct comparative between models, T34 draws the shorter straw..

M4 Sherman when it came, had very comparable armor protection vs T34, except for side armor, where T34 had an edge. Anyway, 75mm M2 and later 75mm M3 were superior guns to T34's F32 and F34 guns, having better penetration. Optics and overall ergonomics benefited Sherman, where only significant advantageT34 had in bogged terrain due to wider tracks.

Later models of Sherman got thicker armor, especially on turret, which was a weak spot on T34/76 (60mm rounded, which means max protection of 70mm), while Sherman had 76mm rounded turret (80mm RHAe)..

Technically, neither tank would destroy the other frontally through hull, while T34 with F34 gun would need to use APCR to penetrate the Sherman's Turret below 500m. Sherman using M3 gun (L40) could penetrate T34's turret at 1000m though..

Mobility wise, T34 would have a bonus, but its reliability was much worse than with Sherman. So i think stats wise, Initial M4 Sherman should be at least equal to T34/76, but have higher initiative, higher HA and more fuel range ( best way how to simulate reliability in PC i think)

i don't know, i for myself always have seen Shermans a lil bit more superior to T-34s, except the t34/85 in 1944-45 which i think was on par with the late Shermans.
I think the history channel, other sensational channels and German propaganda are to blame for this.

btw, whats your take on Close defense stat? i was thinking that stuff like zimmerit paste, schurzen, but also number of machineguns tank have, should all play role on close defense rating of the tank.. having a .50cal on the turret mount, with a crew member firing it, would be quite effective way how to keep infantry away from the tank... especially when typical antitank weapons like Panzerfaust or Panzershreck required standing position, and relatively open field of view, which would be ideal target for machine gunner..

Similarly, Air Defense rating for vehicles, i think there should be an active defense bonus for having an AAMG mount, not just passive one for top armor thickness. Having somebody shooting at you from a tank you wanna attack would definitely make pilot a bit more nervous, than if his target is not responding in any way.. i guess 1-2 points in air defense for AAMG would not make things too radical, definitely less than giving tanks air attack -2, due to 50cal HMG. (original Panzer General had it this way) Plus, tactical air, with exception of Sturmoviks and other specialized planes (Hs-129) were actually not that effective at destroying tanks, and had mostly morale effect.. so i think air defense tanks have should be a bit higher so strafing planes wont do too much damage...

And there is the whole initiative situation, where i think aircraft should have higher initiative than a tank it attacks.. planes were relatively hard to spot, so typically tank crews would more likely respond on attacks coming from plane, than other way around. so maybe planes should have higher base initiative, to get that first shot. Of course that would have to be applied to all planes across the board so air combat would be not impacted by the increase.

i think close defense stat should go with the number of mg(s) carried or fixed on the tank. I would count it like this, 1 cd for a tank with a turret shooting HE + number of mgs. Tds, number of MGs only, unless it had a turret.

as for Air Defense, i think if i were in a tank and saw a dive bomber coming at me, i would get inside close all hatches and wait for the bomb to drop and miss. no point at shooting aircrafts with an MG on a ww2 tank, i think its complete waste of ammo. You have to figure out the speed, the angle of incoming attack, the curves of your bullets etc, its inhuman calculations and pure luck. So personally i would not give any AA to tanks or vehicles, except a few scouts with a twin AA mg with a stabilizer. I would not even give them a passive AA rating. I would increase the AA of AA units, flakpanzers and so on etc. i think the AA mounted on a tank during ww2 gave the crew confidence and a morale booster but that's it.

How many tankers have collected aircrafts kills? probably very few...

about initiative, i don't know, if tanks dont have any AA i think i can let their ini as it is.

JagdpanzerIV wrote:i think close defense stat should go with the number of mg(s) carried or fixed on the tank.

What CD means in Game Rulez ? How its work ? Any formulas ?

JagdpanzerIV wrote:i think close defense stat should go with the number of mg(s) carried or fixed on the tank. I would count it like this, 1 cd for a tank with a turret shooting HE + number of mgs. Tds, number of MGs only, unless it had a turret.

It makes sense that a tank with good all round MGs should be harder for infantry to close in on. In some places the CD appears to follow this - the early British Cruiser with two MG turrets has CD3, and flame tanks also have good CD but there's a few oddities - the M5 has CD 5, which doesn't seem to make sense, although there were some earlier M2 or M3 models with more MGs than crew.

When I was trying out some interwar tanks, I gave the Vickers Independent a good CD (4 or 5 I think) because the four MG turrets make it hard to find an undefended corner.

the M3 had 4 MGs and the M5 had 3, so they should get respectively 5 and 4 of close defense CD, unless a 37mm gun is not effective at killing infantry, that i dont know.

Yrfin wrote:

JagdpanzerIV wrote:i think close defense stat should go with the number of mg(s) carried or fixed on the tank.

What CD means in Game Rulez ? How its work ? Any formulas ?

i don't know the formula they used. *i am guessing* they went with the size of the tank and the number of MGs.

regarding Air defense - thing is, as it is, planes are way too effective against armored vehicles, yet statistics from war say completely another story.. Pilots on many occasions reported huge amount of destroyed tanks, yet when battlefields were later surveyed, only a very small amount of destroyed tanks were found.. plus, it was common practice, that if reason of destruction for enemy tank was unknown, it was automatically signed to planes.. i recall reading statistics from Allied air attacks against German tank formation in Normandy, where pilots reported over 60-70 tanks destroyed, yet only 6 or 7 were actually found on the battlefield...

problem is, HA 1 or 2 for a fighter is still sometimes able to produce decent kills against armored units.. i think it would be best if airplanes produced same effect on units as strategic bombers do, instead of actual kills.. (hope PC2 would go that direction) but for now, i really think Air Defense stats needs to go dramatically up for all tanks.

JaM2013 wrote:regarding Air defense - thing is, as it is, planes are way too effective against armored vehicles, yet statistics from war say completely another story.. Pilots on many occasions reported huge amount of destroyed tanks, yet when battlefields were later surveyed, only a very small amount of destroyed tanks were found.. plus, it was common practice, that if reason of destruction for enemy tank was unknown, it was automatically signed to planes.. i recall reading statistics from Allied air attacks against German tank formation in Normandy, where pilots reported over 60-70 tanks destroyed, yet only 6 or 7 were actually found on the battlefield...

problem is, HA 1 or 2 for a fighter is still sometimes able to produce decent kills against armored units.. i think it would be best if airplanes produced same effect on units as strategic bombers do, instead of actual kills.. (hope PC2 would go that direction) but for now, i really think Air Defense stats needs to go dramatically up for all tanks.

fighter planes HA = 0
Fighter planes with 30mm cannons HA = 1
dive/tactical/strategic bombers HA - 3 from what they have.
If AA units gets a lil boost in their attacks, planes won't be as effective.

also, air defense stat AD could be set to the real thickness of a tank top armor, for example tiger 2 40mm, AD 40, panther top 16mm AD 16 etc.

do you guys read this one?

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the- ... rformance/

it assesses the performance of T34 each year, and must say, some data is incredible.. like for example Soviets losing 15000 T34/76 tanks in 1942, or the fact that over 50% losses of T34/76 were caused by long 50mm gun.. At the same time Flak88, is credited with only 3.4% of all kills, while 37mm and short 75mm got both 10% (not combined!)

Author's conclusion is that T34 was extremely bad in acquiring targets, and being able to observe whats happening around the tank, so Germans were capable engaging it from sides and rear without problem.. Author mentions one example where 37mm PaK 36 managed to fire 23 shots at T34/76, until crew abandoned the tank.. only effect was jammed turret. And while some would be pointing the T34 resistance to 37mm fire, important is the fact antitank gun managed to score 23 hits and T34 was unable to locate from where fire is coming and respond with fire... and now imagine what happened when Germans got the 50mm PaK39 or later 75mm Pak40... T34 crew would be lucky to survive 2-3 hits from those...
Overall, i think T34 initiative in Panzer Corps is most likely exaggerated, and should be even below PzIVD (short 75mm), as these apparently managed to fight the T34 and hit them before T34 could respond.. overall, during years 1941-1944, Soviets lost 4 tanks for each german tank destroyed...

and one quote regarding air power:


During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).(2)
During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.(3)
On a single day in August 1944, the RAF Typhoon pilots claimed no less than 135 tanks as destroyed.(4)

So what really happened? Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.(7) Thus on a single day in August 1944 the RAF claimed 35% more tanks destroyed than the total number of German tanks lost directly to air attack in the entire campaign!

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/


Indeed it appears that air attacks on tank formations protected by Flak were more dangerous for the aircraft than the tanks. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft in Normandy while the 9th USAAF lost 897.(10) These losses, which ironically exceed total German tank losses in the Normandy campaign, would be almost all fighter-bombers. Altogether 4 101 Allied aircraft and 16 714 aircrew were lost over the battlefield or in support of the Normandy campaign.(11)