(11-21-2021, 02:56 PM)Dog Soldier Wrote: The lower ratings in the stock versions take an estimated account of the firepower in the unit, not just the design capabilities of the individual T-34. Most Russian crews by the time of M41 had barely any time spent in their vehicle. Most did not train together and that training was abysmal. The tank commanders were in a cramped turret and had to act as a loader. The commanders had to expose themselves in open hatches due to poor visibility in the turret (hatch closed) and could be taken out with a good rifle shot. Unit commanders did not know their fellow vehicle commanders. Coordination of the vehicles in the unit was virtually non-existent.
Individual bravery, stubbornness, tried to make up for these short comings. The Russian T-34 could inflict damage, but in the fall of 1941, they could not win engagements.
Forget the Russian T-34 unit depicted on the game counters being that effective. Many just broke down and never got in the fight because the crews had no idea how to do any field repairs. They simply abandoned the vehicles.
German Pz38 light tank crews were veterans of several campaigns for the most part. They had radio control of all vehicles in the unit counter to act i a coordinated and effective manner. They could target the weak spots on the T-34, at least disabling it by shooting up the tracks. Then move in for the kill at close range on the wounded T-34. Also the Germans and players of the game, should employ combined arms tactics to control the battlefield and meet their objectives. It was not until the Soviet counter attack that winter with the panzer forces much reduced and immobilized by the weather, that the Soviets were able to get the upper hand.
The Alt versions have their good points, but also trade offs too.
Dog Soldier
Being armor combat one of those trade offs indeed! (That includes repairings and Defense also)
Not to mention armor brittle, lacking commander cupula, and taking into account that 66% of hits were against the sides/rear, the frontal armor was important but not THE keystone to set tank defense. (size, speed, backpedalling speed, training, battlefield awareness and of course armor should be take into account)
Other inaccuracies regarding Fall 1941:
Russian Anti-Tank Rifles. Those were so dangerous than the germans had to protect the sides of their Pz IV G (and later) tanks by summer of 1943 (sides kirts and later the mess skirt. The AT rifle could damage them because a weak spot between the wheels and the superstructure prior the skirts.) They did so because of the number of tanks needed repairing (thus disabled) because of that weapon. And that's the reason the soviet kept employing it even by 1945.
[PTRS-41 and PTRD AT Rifles could penetrate an armour plate up to 40mm 90º slope thick at a distance of 100 meters. 30mm of armor at 500m. The sides of the BEST armored german tank until Panther arrived was 33mm at 25º slope - PzIV G which sported an effective 36.5mm armor at 90º-. Pz III and Pz IV prior to G. had 30mm at 90º so the rifle could penetrate it up to 500 meters theoretically - provided the target was at a perpendicular angle and the bullet did not shatter because of high speed and small size - so only a number of shot did so ] In the end after the summer of 1943 they were used as anti-meteriel weapons.
The germans captured ones were called Panzerbüchse 784(r ) o PzB 784(r ). Still in use in the Donbass war!
Germans AT-Rifle grenades (prior to Panzerschreck) were one of the main weapons used to destroy soviet armor up to 280 meters and are often neglected in HA values for Infantry. That weapon remained in use until the end of the war.
[Granatbüchse Modell 39 (GrB 39) 40mm rifle grende, usable by the PzB 39 with a range of 280 meters (most effective at 150 meters) with a penetration around 80mm at 90º slope. (60mm vs 60º, 40mm vs 30º).
T-34B 1941 had 45mm at 40º Hull side armor and was destroyed usually within 150-200 meters range. The proper AT Rifle PzB 39 had 20mm armor penetration at 300 meters.]
Artillery (including Infantry Guns) firing against armor both directly or indirectly, stock values are much more accurate. For example even by the battle of Kharkov 1942 panzer divisions were using their K-18 cannons to engage armor instead of artillery role. Lots and lots of tanks attacks were stopped cold by artillery indirect fire even. Take a look at AAR of Bulge or Kursk for example.
Anti-tanks guns have a lower HA than they should be since they were trained and positioned to hit the sides of the tanks and the rate of fire were usually faster than the tanks using the same weapon (at 76mm caliber and below)
For example: A repport form 10th Tank Division - 2 August 1941 - reported that within 300–400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the T34B frontal armor.
Same for AA weapons used in ground role. There is a reason the USA AAAW M-16 units were called the meatgrinder
The list continues but I don't want to hijack your post more than I did, sorry.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
