• CW First Clash - In this game my plan was to use the PzIVs from hull down positions to cover my light armour as it advanced towards the big VP area on the Allied side of the map, keeping them behind a reverse slope - out of sight - until I made contact with Allied armour. That happened soon enough - my Lynxes got raped by Barre's own overwatching armour, Cromwells, if I recall correctly. I then ordered the PzIV's I had in reserve to advance to hull-down positions and engage the Cromwells. Three Pz IV's were engaging 2 (?) Cromwells, and as I usually do, I staggered the Pz IVs maneuver with 10 seconds pauses (that is, the first one moves right away, the second one 10 secs later, the third one 30 secs later). The result was that I lost 2 Pz IV's and Barre 1 Cromwell. The Cromwells spotted the PzIVs as they were settling on their hull-down positions, and killed two of them right away with frontal turret hits (the third Pz IV managed to get a couple shots on a Cromwell, which I guess was 'distracted'). Later on the game, I got two more Pz IVs killed, both by frontal turret hits, as they were moving into hull-down positions.
  
  
• Clearing the Niscemi Highway - Similar story to First Clash. One Pz IV got killed by a frontal turret hit, when engaging from a hull-down position - and by the flank - a very nicely keyholed Sherman (the accompanying PzIIIM killed the Sherman shortly afterwards). I lost two Pz IV's to RPG hits on the turret (two side RPG hits had no effect). The rest of my Pz IV's losses there were because I did something quite boneheaded.
  
  
• In For A Pound - Early in the game, a Pz IV I had on hull-down overwatching the deployment of my AT guns got killed - without spotting the killer - by a frontal turret hit. Interestingly, all my Pz IV's losses were due to frontal turret hits. I could observe that the early Sherman 75mm guns have a hard time killing outright PzIV's with frontal hull penetrations at ranges over 300 meters (I mean 'hard' as in the chances being something like 25 or 33%, penetrations usually resulted in the crew bailing out and , occasionally, crew casualties). One of my Pz IVs bailed out a great total of 4 times, until the tank was finally destroyed with the fifth penetration (on the turret). All first hit kills were hits to the frontal turret.
  
  
• Meeting Engagement at Les Charne - Totally different game to the above. Here I could use the bocage to mask my Pz IVs effectively. The bocage also granted hull-down like benefits while somehow 'protecting' those fragile Pz IV turrets. And more importantly, I could maneuver around the Allied armour, getting flank shots, thanks to the masking provided by the bocage. Here my 2 of my Pz IV losses were 'mobility' kills - 1 PzIV engine broke down moving cross country and another Pz IV threw a track - and the third one because I did something really retarded.
  
  
• Bon Giorno Tomahawks - Here I totally owned Cyrano's PzIVs, in frontal engagements. In two cases, the Pz IV's were on hull-down positions in a higher elevation, and I got two kills with two direct hits on the turret. Both of these kills were achieved at ranges over 500 meters. I got two other kills at extremely close range - less than 50 meters. In both cases, the Sherman spotted first, and sent the PzIV to the Scrapyard in the Sky with frontal penetrations.
  

Quote:All else being equal, a group of M4A3 Shermans should have a modest advantage head-to-head at 300m against an equal-sized group of PzIVH.

Here is why. While the German 75mm gun is better than the US 75mm, the Sherman has superior frontal armor. The PzIVH has an obsolete turret front and virtually no armor sloping anywhere. Further, its frontal armor is face-hardened which is a liability against the capped armor-piercing ammunition (APCBC) used by the western Allies in 1944.

Let's first examine the PzIVH shooting at the M4A3 Sherman straight on, non oblique hits:

M4A3 Sherman frontal armor:
76mm @ 30° turret (treated as 69mm due to mediocre armor manufacturing quality)
89mm @ 0° gun mantlet (treated as 80mm)
51mm @ 56° upper hull (treated as 46mm)
51mm @ 15°(avg) lower hull (treated as 46mm)

German PzIVH (75mm KwK40 L/48) armor penetration (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
0°: 127mm
15°: 120mm
30°: 99mm
56°: 53mm

Hit results:
M4A3 Sherman turret: easily penetrates (120mm vs 69mm)
M4A3 Sherman gun mantlet: easily penetrates (127mm vs 80mm)
M4A3 Sherman upper hull: usually but not always penetrates; majority of killing energy absorbed by armor (53mm vs 46mm)
M4A3 Sherman lower hull: easily penetrates (120mm vs 46mm)

Summary:
If the Sherman is hit straight on in the turret or lower hull it's in bad shape, but if it's hit in the upper hull (aka glacis plate) it has a decent chance to survive. Not great, but decent. And the glacis plate is the largest and most central of the potential target areas so many hits will occur there.

Now let's examine the M4A3 Sherman shooting at the PzIVH straight on, non oblique hits:

PzIVH-late frontal armor (all face-hardened, which is a liability versus US APCBC shells -- this is very important!):

50mm @ 10° turret
80mm @ 10° upper hull
80mm @ 15° lower hull

M4A3 Sherman (75mm M3 L/40, firing APCBC) armor penetration versus face-hardened armor (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
10°: 96mm
15°: 93mm

Hit results:
PzIVH-late turret: easily penetrates (96mm vs 50mm)
PzIVH-late upper hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (96mm vs 80mm)
PzIVH-late lower hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (93mm vs 80mm)

Summary:
PzIVH armor cannot withstand a straight on hit from a Sherman anywhere. Its best hope is for a hull hit where some of the energy is absorbed, but often this won't be enough to save the tank.

When oblique angles are taken into effect the picture changes. The more the shot deviates from a straight on hit the greater the chance of deflection instead of penetration. Sloped and rounded armor enhances this chance more so than vertically aligned plates. If the chance of a penetration from straight on is marginal, then a less optimal angle of impact likely means the round does not penetrate. When examining the numbers above, it's pretty clear that the Sherman is far more likely to survive a hit from a PzIV than the PzIV is to survive a hit from a Sherman.


…there are some really deeply entrenched assumptions about what German (and American) equipment should and should not be capable of. And yet when we dig down a little, it seems that these hardened assumptions are not based on anything real.

The above is a perfect example. The assumption is that PzIV = Sherman. Case closed?

Well, the assumption is wrong. These two tanks are not quite equivalent. They have significantly different strengths and weaknesses. In some situations I'd want a PzIV, and in others a Sherman. And at 300m head to head, give me the M4A3 please. The armor on the PzIV is obsolete by 1944. Even to American guns, it just can't hold up, and Combat Mission reflects this.

(03-27-2014, 06:02 PM)TimoS. Wrote: The other Problem is firing/spotting out of a Moving Tank. Yes i know the Sherman had that Magic Gyro Stab. but how much he (and other Tanks too btw) Hits while on the move is a Joke. On a Plain Road, hmm okay. But not on Grass, Rubble etc.

(03-27-2014, 06:02 PM)TimoS. Wrote: I must admit that i like the new Spotting System overall (Infantry Spots Enemy Tank and if 3 Hexes beside a Blue Tank it can pass the C2 Information onto the Tank). But most deciding Factor of Tankcombat must be Spotting,C2,Morale,Optics and the most important stantionaryvs.moving. Atm its who sees first wins 90%.

As it is right now it feels more like a Gamble now and then.

(03-27-2014, 11:08 PM)A Canadian Cat Wrote: Yeah, this has been discussed on the BFC forums a few times. Bottom line is getting the TAC AI to, while executing your movement order, stop aim acquire and fire then continue is a significant challenge. So they have reduced the accuracy of on the move firing but not as much as actually fire on the move. Since SOP was to stop to fire and then resume they have to allow for some simulation of that.
I do agree it would be really nice to see stop fire continue. Hopefully some day.

(03-27-2014, 11:08 PM)A Canadian Cat Wrote: I think that who sees first wins is exactly how it should be - especially at short ranges.

Sure, stepping onto the battle field is in part a gamble. We should all be using good tactics to try to stack the deck as in our favour as we can. Scouting, before engaging, keeping infantry around to support your tanks. All those good things can stack the who sees first in your favour.

(02-16-2014, 10:10 AM)Weasel Wrote: You are all wrong, they suck and no one will tell me different! It can't be my play, how could that be??

Honestly I lost 3 of 5 PzIVs to moving allied tanks while I was stationary and hatches open, all one hit kills from a Sherman.

Just a post out of frustration. I have noticed that armoured skirts don't seem to protect the tanks against rockets (bazookas and piat) which the skirt is designed to defeat. It seems the game is either treating it as just armour or it is just there for graphic purposes.

(03-26-2014, 10:45 AM)raz_atoth Wrote: I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Pz IV is clearly outclassed by all Allied armor. Even in 1945. Granted, it won't go par to par with a IS-2 at 1000m, but it will do a good job at killing pretty much any medium tank the allies can throw against it.

I guess when it comes to Pz IV vs. Shermans is the below snippet:

Quote:All else being equal, a group of M4A3 Shermans should have a modest advantage head-to-head at 300m against an equal-sized group of PzIVH.

Here is why. While the German 75mm gun is better than the US 75mm, the Sherman has superior frontal armor. The PzIVH has an obsolete turret front and virtually no armor sloping anywhere. Further, its frontal armor is face-hardened which is a liability against the capped armor-piercing ammunition (APCBC) used by the western Allies in 1944.

Let's first examine the PzIVH shooting at the M4A3 Sherman straight on, non oblique hits:

M4A3 Sherman frontal armor:
76mm @ 30° turret (treated as 69mm due to mediocre armor manufacturing quality)
89mm @ 0° gun mantlet (treated as 80mm)
51mm @ 56° upper hull (treated as 46mm)
51mm @ 15°(avg) lower hull (treated as 46mm)

German PzIVH (75mm KwK40 L/48) armor penetration (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
0°: 127mm
15°: 120mm
30°: 99mm
56°: 53mm

Hit results:
M4A3 Sherman turret: easily penetrates (120mm vs 69mm)
M4A3 Sherman gun mantlet: easily penetrates (127mm vs 80mm)
M4A3 Sherman upper hull: usually but not always penetrates; majority of killing energy absorbed by armor (53mm vs 46mm)
M4A3 Sherman lower hull: easily penetrates (120mm vs 46mm)

Summary:
If the Sherman is hit straight on in the turret or lower hull it's in bad shape, but if it's hit in the upper hull (aka glacis plate) it has a decent chance to survive. Not great, but decent. And the glacis plate is the largest and most central of the potential target areas so many hits will occur there.

Now let's examine the M4A3 Sherman shooting at the PzIVH straight on, non oblique hits:

PzIVH-late frontal armor (all face-hardened, which is a liability versus US APCBC shells -- this is very important!):

50mm @ 10° turret
80mm @ 10° upper hull
80mm @ 15° lower hull

M4A3 Sherman (75mm M3 L/40, firing APCBC) armor penetration versus face-hardened armor (average) at 300m at various armor slopes:
10°: 96mm
15°: 93mm

Hit results:
PzIVH-late turret: easily penetrates (96mm vs 50mm)
PzIVH-late upper hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (96mm vs 80mm)
PzIVH-late lower hull: penetrates, some killing energy absorbed by armor (93mm vs 80mm)

Summary:
PzIVH armor cannot withstand a straight on hit from a Sherman anywhere. Its best hope is for a hull hit where some of the energy is absorbed, but often this won't be enough to save the tank.

When oblique angles are taken into effect the picture changes. The more the shot deviates from a straight on hit the greater the chance of deflection instead of penetration. Sloped and rounded armor enhances this chance more so than vertically aligned plates. If the chance of a penetration from straight on is marginal, then a less optimal angle of impact likely means the round does not penetrate. When examining the numbers above, it's pretty clear that the Sherman is far more likely to survive a hit from a PzIV than the PzIV is to survive a hit from a Sherman.


…there are some really deeply entrenched assumptions about what German (and American) equipment should and should not be capable of. And yet when we dig down a little, it seems that these hardened assumptions are not based on anything real.

The above is a perfect example. The assumption is that PzIV = Sherman. Case closed?

Well, the assumption is wrong. These two tanks are not quite equivalent. They have significantly different strengths and weaknesses. In some situations I'd want a PzIV, and in others a Sherman. And at 300m head to head, give me the M4A3 please. The armor on the PzIV is obsolete by 1944. Even to American guns, it just can't hold up, and Combat Mission reflects this.