What an excellent discussion!
(04-05-2010, 11:45 PM)Krazy Kat Wrote: That is a good point. I have been thinking about the AF and whether I like it or not...
I have Thought About This and accordingly, I have come into a Conclusion. :smoke:
This:
(04-06-2010, 10:51 PM)Mike Abberton Wrote: Playing Combat Mission made me much more aware of the overall armor scheme on tanks. In fact, Panthers in CM are generally not that difficult to kill as long as you use the right tactics. Attack them from multiple separated points and you will eventually get shots at side armor or the side of the turret (which is well sloped but fairly thin). So even though all your tanks are in what CS considers the "front arc", you don't have problems penetrating given a little bit of time (but still in what CS considers a turn or two).
Also read Don Fox's book on the 4th Armored division. When properly used, the 4th's tank regiments (and attached TD battalion) were able to handle Panthers at very sustainable loss ratios (i.e., in the US' favor as often as not). The Panther in particular was not an unbeatable opponent from the "front".
It comes down to this, doesn't it? First of all, are the tanks themselved properly modelled, but
equally importantly: do the same tactics work out as worked at the time? Of course keeping in mind the level of abstraction with platoons, 250 hexes and the famed 6 minute turns.
In this case: is it possible to have a better kill ratio when having Shermans against Panthers. Answer, I believe is: yes it is! :thumbs_up:
:soap:
I recently read a book about the Assault gun battalion during Summer 1944, the day to day events described based on their original war diaries. More info on this later, but the interesting point to discuss here is the fact they ended up with a quite amazing kill ratio of 89 enemy tanks vs a loss of 8 own tanks.
- Out of 8 losses one got stuck and the ground was lost, two drove into mines, the other one even into a friendly minefield, 3 were knocked down by enemy tanks and two by enemy AT guns. All 8 were lost on counter-attacks.
- The 89 kills were mostly T-34/43s with some -85s thrown in. A few KV-1s, and IIRC three IS-2s and two ISU-152s. Most kills from distances bw 150(!) - 600 meters, often from camouflaged, even prepared defensive positions. The typical terrain was either open fields with some villages, or very narrow curvy roads where movement outside roads was not possible. Vast unfriendly forests outside the few agricultural areas. On small roads, especially when on counter-attack, they were often fighting at very short distances, 15 - 150 meters (!that's how to kill an IS-2: fire away from the same hex!), and said it often felt like at wild west books where one needed to be both quick and accurate.
As the above actually happened, the next question is: would that be possible with EF II?
With the proper map and terrain, with AF=on, with right tactics, and finally with some lucky dice every now and then, I come into an assumption that :
yes, it just might. This is great news, isn't it!
Of course, if StuGs could routinely have a 1/10 kill ratio against T-34s the game engine would be seriously flawed, but that is not the case here at all. With two equally skilled players and AF off it could never happen?
As written in this thread, the tanks of the time were pretty much blind as bats. Additionally, they had to come into a complete halt before they could fire accurately. The co-operation between tanks was mostly based on tactics and that the crews were properly trained.
Larry made a good point as how it was with manouvering at the time.
Another :soap: :
I noticed the infamous Tali Ihantala 1944 (TI44) movie is back on Youtube. As a movie, I hated it and felt let down with it. Small budget, amateurs, etc. My score: 3/10. Being generous there...
I later saw an interview with director where mr Lindman said that he did not want to direct a movie as such, but a movie-like documentation of some key battles and on units. He wanted to represent to young generations how things were then, and how the fiercest fighting at the time unfolded and was felt by the troops. For an example, he wanted to tell the story of a full battalion of Swedish volunteers and how they did their job as bravely as any native there. For an example you see the scene where the Panzerfaust were just made available to front line troops (end of clip 4 and into clip 5) and how after a 30 second training they were left to their own. The problem was that the Swedes did not understand a word of Finnish...
They did a lot of research of events, and I have now warmed up a lot to TI44, not as a movie but as a WW II re-enactment. They aimed for 100% accuracy on equipment, contemporary tactics, etc.. As a WW II re-enactment available on DVD format, it cannot pretty much come better as it comes here? Acting still sucks, but hey: how often do you get a cool 2 mill to film a series of re-enactments with HD cameras, directing, proper editing and cutting? My score with this point-of-view? 9/10 !!!
Clip 2: Battle as seen from inside a StuG III
Clip 3 (the latter half) to
Clip 4: Battle as seen from inside a T-34/41 (not sure about the model?)
Clip 5 and into Clip 6 as the infantry pulls back: Counter attack as seen by eyes of infantry. They
are blind as bat? The tanks I mean.
And now back to JTCS and AF with some historic cases. All situations were described in the book in detail in a way the authors intepreted the situation from the unit's war diary.
I know these situations are almost too small to be discussed in the scope of JTCS, but that was my intention: only a couple of dice rolled per scenario.
Case 1 (TI44 / clip 2, see above): A StuG platoon (2 tanks) bumps into a T-34 platoon (5 tanks) having a break.
Historically: the leading StuG gets the first action, fires at the first T-34 (eliminated), fires at the second T-34 (eliminated), fires at the third retreating T-34 (eliminated). The fourth T-34 charges forward but does not stop and misses. The leading StuG fires (T-34 is eliminated). Their gun jams, - and this is not in the film but happened: the accompanying StuG comes forward, stops, fires at the retreating T-34 from behind and kills it.
5 T-34 knocked down by two tanks with no losses.
JTCS? Since a TD cannot move and fire twice, I assume we would have to picture a SP2 StuG hiding in a forested hex. A probing T-34 platoon SP5 bumps into them.
- StuG op. fires, result: A disruption. T-34 platoon fires twice. First shot, no results. Second, shot no results, StuG op.fires again: loss of 1 SP.
- Axis player turn: StuG has 100AP, fires once, loss of 1SP + retreat, rear side vulnerable. Fires again. The remaining 2 T-34 SP killed and unit eliminated.
Conclusion: Loss of 5 T-34 SPs by 2 StuG SPs, from adjacent hexes, with no friendly losses... Hmmm,
very lucky dice? But just
might happen?
Historically, they lads considered themselves quite lucky as the Russian tank crews were caught on having a short break to discuss tactis or avenue of advance or something.
Case 2 (TI44 / clip 5, see above)
Historically: A Finnish counter-attack. In this particular location by the main road it meant advancing against some 20+ T-34s spread out into defensive formation accompanied with infantry, no friendly artillery available. Results: two StuGs knocked down, quite heavy casualties for infantry who were not able to advance close enough to use panzerfausts and shrecks. Counter-attack fully repelled and quickly abandoned. 1 T-34 was seen having been knocked down.
JTCS? Russians: Four platoons of T-34/43s (5SP each) spread out on forest hexes vith a good view to an open field and to road in it. Each tank platoon has an accompanying rifle or SMG platoon. Full op. fire available with all units set on defense. No time to have made any IPs though.
Finnish player brings forward his first StuG platoon (2SP) and moves towards the Russians with four to five panzer grenadier platoons. The accompanying StuG platoon (SP2) is kept on reserve for now (or was it a T-34 + KV-1, does not matter though).
StuG platoon moves into open, fires once, knocks down one T-34 SP. Resulting op.fire eliminates the unit.
Russian turn: panzer grenadiers that have come into open are properly blasted from all directions and all hostile units are seen retreating back having taken some heavy losses.
Finnish player decides not to bring his another StuG platoon (SP2) into play at all, and retreats his disrupted infantry. Decides not to try again.
Conclusion:
What were they thinking (the units at the time
and the guy playing the axis side) !?!?
Case 3 (no clip, but this is from the war diaries from the same sector). Five T-34s had breached the lines. The accompanying infantry did not make it. They set to spend a night on an isolated batch of forest, to move out in the morning. A StuG platoon (2 tanks) with accompanying infantry is ordered to destroy the tanks.
Historically: Having assessed the situation, they noticed there are only two obvious routes into the woods. They split, one StuG covering each route, with infantry w/ panzerfaust spread around in some advantegous locations.
In the first light of morning, the T-34s indeed break out using one of the available routes. The hidden and camouflaged StuG, from the preferred position, fires once - knocks the leading T-34 down. The second T-34 fires back from the move, aims too high and misses. It is knocked down with the second grenade of the StuG. The third T-34 fires from the move, but aims too low. The third grenade from the StuG knocks it down. The two remaining T-34s break to left, but on a difficult terrain the infantry squad promptly destroyed them both with panzerfausts. No friendly losses.
JTCS? A T-34 platoon (SP5) drives into open from forest. A StuG platoon (SP1) op. fires from close distance, from a forest hex or village hex? Result: disrupted. T-34 fires once, no result. StuG op. fires again, knocks down 1 SP) T-34 fires again, no result. All APs used.
Axis player: StuG fires once, knocks down 1 SP, fires twice, knocks down another SP1, T-34 (2SP) still disrupted retreats to left.
Panzergrenaried platoon (SP4) moves in, has APs for one shot at the rear of T-34: loss of 2SP, T-34 eliminated.
Conclusion: Hmmm... Some lucky dice initially, but
could happen? Especially as there is capable infantry available.
:soap:
The 'Krazy' Conclusion: The armour is pretty well modelled and the AF rule is "spot on". Score: 9,5 / 10
If any changes are to be done, perhaps when a tank retreats there would be a random dice for which of the eight direction the tank ends up facing.
IMHO a "bug fix" where a tank would always retreat in an orderly fashion would be not a good solution, it could even be a step to wrong direction? If you looked at the clips I provided, perhaps you would agree there is no way the tanks of the time would reverse more than a few dozen yards most before they would be stuck or worse.
(On a separate notice I was quite suprised how incredibly fragile the Stugs were at 1944, after all the pzkpw III chassis had been mass produced for several years... especially when compared to T-34s. However the crews absolutely loved the long 75mm cannon it carried.)
Besides, just imagine
Crisis on the Order where seventy IS-2s could just pound it forward, relying that even when hit they would just retreat one hex with their strong side still facing the enemy? I liked the comment above as how the AF as it currently stands forces the player to carefully consider how to bring the armour into a fight.
As for the statistics and strategies Huib mentions, I know you guys have made your homework and there is a lot of consideration put into this game. The conclusion must then be that for certain scenarios: AF must be OFF?
The good thing is that the scenario designer can nowadays include the proper recommendation into scenario description?
End of a long rant... Next time I have an extra 60 minutes I will create a new thread giving my 0.02 as how spot-on the current indirect arty implemention is! (pun intended yes, but I am serious here :smoke: )
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
