Forces balance

[enric]

I see several scenarios (MP) where both sides have the same points to choose units, in a meeting engagement situation.
I think it happens a similar unbalanced situation as happened in BA1 bettween the German and Allied forces.
In my opinion, German tanks by cost are better than Russian tanks that cost the same.

[pipfromslitherine]

You'll have to debate that with Iain

Cheers

Pip

[IainMcNeil]

The answer is to balance the points if there is an issue but we obviously think its ok

[enric]

The answer is to balance the points if there is an issue but we obviously think its ok

Yes, but in the MP scenarios the points are already distributed, and in some cases, for example, "No mans Land", both sides have the same points.

Imagine a scenario where you can spend all points on T28 (cost 54 each) and the other side spend all points on Pz38t same cost. So both have same amount of units, same AP movement,
Front armor is 30 for T28 and 35 for Pz38t
The accuracy is also much better in the Pz38t

So in this imaginary situation the T28s should not have any possibilities.

I'm very conscious of to give a cost to each unit is not an easy task.

[IainMcNeil]

The T28 is a lot faster from memory and moves over snow more easily. The costs are based on a calculation which takes account of all the units stats and then a manual adjustment is made to get them to fee right. There will always be a reason why one is more expensive than the other.

[Gerry4321]

Just curious about other combinations. Historically did it take a few T-34s to kill a Panther? If yes, is that also reflected in the costs?

Thanks,

Gerry

[MacD2013]

Just curious about other combinations. Historically did it take a few T-34s to kill a Panther? If yes, is that also reflected in the costs?

Thanks,

Gerry

Depended on the range, like so many other things, but a Panther was more than a match for a T34, even after the T34 was upgraded to the T34/85. Panther could penetrate a T34 frontally at damn near 2km. If I remember correctly a T34/85 couldn't penetrate a Panther frontally until it was 400m away. Side penetrations for both tanks were similar in terms of range. I've read some crazy reports that stated Soviet tank tactics when coming across large numbers of Panthers/Tigers was to just straight rush the tank, lose a few T34s and have 1 or 2 get around the flank of the Panther/Tiger to take it out.

I think when it comes to costs, or rather production values, the Soviets need to be given a large edge. Panther had some mechanical issues but were smoothed out by '44. Just took faaaar longer to build a Panther than it did a T34.

[acarhj]

Depended on the range, like so many other things, but a Panther was more than a match for a T34, even after the T34 was upgraded to the T34/85. Panther could penetrate a T34 frontally at damn near 2km. If I remember correctly a T34/85 couldn't penetrate a Panther frontally until it was 400m away. Side penetrations for both tanks were similar in terms of range. I've read some crazy reports that stated Soviet tank tactics when coming across large numbers of Panthers/Tigers was to just straight rush the tank, lose a few T34s and have 1 or 2 get around the flank of the Panther/Tiger to take it out.

I think when it comes to costs, or rather production values, the Soviets need to be given a large edge. Panther had some mechanical issues but were smoothed out by '44. Just took faaaar longer to build a Panther than it did a T34.

Several things about these statements need to be made clear.

1) It is true that the 75/L70 was very leathal at longer ranges. There are plenty of accounts of Russain tanks being destroyed at that range. However, it is also very hard to hit anything at that range. Several to many shots are usually fired to gain a kill at that range depending on the skill of the tank crew. Optimal range for any tank of WW2 is 1000 yards or closer. At 400 yards, according to Heinz Guarderien, you needed to be very quick or you would be very dead.

2) The Panther had extrodinarily weak armor from the flank. A sherman armed with a 75/L40 for instance could easily take down a Panther from a 1000 yards away. Phillip Lawrence of the 2nd Canadian Tank Brigade told of one such encounter during the opening phases of D-Day. His company of M4s ambushed and destroyed a Company of Panthers at 1000 yards.

3) Maneuver is key. The Russians need to make a covered approach. Scouting is important as well. Also a volume of fire against a target that is seemingly impervious to your guns still might be damaged. Imobilization and main gun damage are ones I've seen.

EDIt one more thing. The 85mm/L53 can put a hole in the front armor of a Panther at 1000 yards. 128mm of penetration using APCBC, Armor Piercing Capped (with harded metal) Balistically Capped (with some kind of painted on alloy to make the thing more accurate). The Panter has a front hull armor of 60mm with a deflection angle of 50 degrees. That will probably give it something like 4" of effective armor. It has a maximum of 4" of armor on the gun mantel of the turret.

[IainMcNeil]

Russian tanks are amazingly maneuverable. You have to make use of this and to concentrate force on weak points in the German line and overwhelm them and then outflank the rest of the force.

[IronFist00]

[The Panter has a front hull armor of 60mm with a deflection angle of 50 degrees. That will probably give it something like 4" of effective armor. It has a maximum of 4" of armor on the gun mantel of the turret.

Was this a typo? Every listing I've ever seen mentions the base thickness of a Panther's front plate to be 80mm of sloped frontal armor, usually giving an effective equivalent thickness of 120mm. Meaning if you shoot at the front of a Panther, head-on, it would be harder to penetrate that, than a Tiger. Of course there are many factors involved, including ammo type, tactics, training, equipment, etc. when discussing these things. I'm simply talking about facing a Panther from the front on flat ground versus a Tiger head-on, the Panther has greater effective armor.

[MacD2013]

[The Panter has a front hull armor of 60mm with a deflection angle of 50 degrees. That will probably give it something like 4" of effective armor. It has a maximum of 4" of armor on the gun mantel of the turret.

Was this a typo? Every listing I've ever seen mentions the base thickness of a Panther's front plate to be 80mm of sloped frontal armor, usually giving an effective equivalent thickness of 120mm. Meaning if you shoot at the front of a Panther, head-on, it would be harder to penetrate that, than a Tiger. Of course there are many factors involved, including ammo type, tactics, training, equipment, etc. when discussing these things. I'm simply talking about facing a Panther from the front on flat ground versus a Tiger head-on, the Panther has greater effective armor.

I've heard those measurements as well for armour on a Panther.

[MacD2013]

Depended on the range, like so many other things, but a Panther was more than a match for a T34, even after the T34 was upgraded to the T34/85. Panther could penetrate a T34 frontally at damn near 2km. If I remember correctly a T34/85 couldn't penetrate a Panther frontally until it was 400m away. Side penetrations for both tanks were similar in terms of range. I've read some crazy reports that stated Soviet tank tactics when coming across large numbers of Panthers/Tigers was to just straight rush the tank, lose a few T34s and have 1 or 2 get around the flank of the Panther/Tiger to take it out.

I think when it comes to costs, or rather production values, the Soviets need to be given a large edge. Panther had some mechanical issues but were smoothed out by '44. Just took faaaar longer to build a Panther than it did a T34.

Several things about these statements need to be made clear.

1) It is true that the 75/L70 was very leathal at longer ranges. There are plenty of accounts of Russain tanks being destroyed at that range. However, it is also very hard to hit anything at that range. Several to many shots are usually fired to gain a kill at that range depending on the skill of the tank crew. Optimal range for any tank of WW2 is 1000 yards or closer. At 400 yards, according to Heinz Guarderien, you needed to be very quick or you would be very dead.
Ya I was simply talking about ballistic capabilities for each gun vs each tanks armour. Obviously in combat its not as though you're consistently drilling T34s from 2km away. The 400 yards was the range I'd read that a T34/85 had to be at to effectively knock out a Panther frontally.

2) The Panther had extrodinarily weak armor from the flank. A sherman armed with a 75/L40 for instance could easily take down a Panther from a 1000 yards away. Phillip Lawrence of the 2nd Canadian Tank Brigade told of one such encounter during the opening phases of D-Day. His company of M4s ambushed and destroyed a Company of Panthers at 1000 yards.
Based on what I've read over the years, both the Panther and T34 were similarly vulnerable on their side armours.

3) Maneuver is key. The Russians need to make a covered approach. Scouting is important as well. Also a volume of fire against a target that is seemingly impervious to your guns still might be damaged. Imobilization and main gun damage are ones I've seen.

EDIt one more thing. The 85mm/L53 can put a hole in the front armor of a Panther at 1000 yards. 128mm of penetration using APCBC, Armor Piercing Capped (with harded metal) Balistically Capped (with some kind of painted on alloy to make the thing more accurate). The Panter has a front hull armor of 60mm with a deflection angle of 50 degrees. That will probably give it something like 4" of effective armor. It has a maximum of 4" of armor on the gun mantel of the turret.
Think this is what I touched on in point 1, but I haven't read the 85 being able to penetrate a Panther frontally at 1000 yards. I won't pretend to be a tank expert or anything, just what I've come across, you may very well indeed be correct.

[IronFist00]

I've heard those measurements as well for armour on a Panther.

I don't know if you meant you heard what I did or what he wrote but here are two non-wiki sources that have the 80 mm or more frontal armor for the Panther:
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/panther.html

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/n ... anther.php

[MacD2013]

I've heard those measurements as well for armour on a Panther.

I don't know if you meant you heard what I did or what he wrote but here are two non-wiki sources that have the 80 mm or more frontal armor for the Panther:
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/panther.html

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/n ... anther.php

No I meant your numbers. I've heard 80mm with it effectively being 120mm because of the sloping armour, heard it from a veteran on the BBC as well.

[acarhj]

From WWII Vehicles website which annotates several sources. I read the first entry. It has the armor at 60mm and 55 degrees actually. That's probably about 4". The turret is 4". The larget number is in fact 80mm one source stating 55 degree slope. Another states 50-80mm. So apparently it gets as little as 5cm somewhere on the front side. Here is the link for the Panther G. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/veh ... m-tank.asp