CMBB v CMAK

[Tanker]

Ah semantics. For me, it would connote the main or most important part, the core.

[Mad Russian]

What self propoganda value and self esteem value is gained by admitting that the enemy has better capabilities than you do?

The only one I know if is the one played over and over.....The Russians were bigger, better, badder but we still beat them.

A minor point: The obvious answer to your question is using it as an excuse, a very cogent point when talking about post war memoirs.

That is not a minor point. But it is so blatantly obvious when you read their biographies that it's easy to follow. When, as in Guderians case with the battle of Senno, he specifically points out that the Soviets fought well for one of the few times in the early war months. That to me at least doesn't fall into that category.

But that's just my opinion.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

I think you'll find that the T34 available in 1941 could be dealt with by a PIII with a 37mm gun on pretty even terms. A PIII with a 50mm is deadly to them, will kill them from most ranges. The T34 front armour doesn't stand up at only 45mm. It's the 60mm and 70mm turret front T34s that caused the trouble from 1942 onwards.

The 37mm Anti tank gun cannot deal with the T34, that's accepted. I don't know why, but the 37mm Pak does not have the power of the 37mm tank gun.

In CMBB thhe 37mm PAK is a 37L45 and the PzIII 37mm tank gun is listed as a 37L47. That would make the tank gun more effective. Even if firing exactly the same ammo. The Pz38(t) has a 37L48 making it even more effective.

You're also using production figures as if they bear some correlation to Russian tank strength which of course they didn't. So, on the eve of invasion iirc (and you will no doubt correct me), there were about fifteen to twenty thinly armoured T26/BT5/BT7 for every T23 or KV. And the PzII was quite capable of shredding them, leaving only the now somewhat rare PzI as completely useless.

I used both production numbers and availability numbers here. The production numbers were to show that the T-34 had already become the main Soviet tank before the invasion. From their standpoint. That it didn't take until 1943 for the Soviets to be using it as the workhorse and not T-60's and T-70's. I used Soviet TO&E's to show that fact as well. I can post the TO&E's for all the Soviet tank brigades and we can go over them one by one and discuss the changes.

Of course the TO&E's are not absolutes either. They never are. But when the other side of the discussion brings in production figures for two others Soviet tanks for a two year period that barely match the production figures for the T-34 in a single year to prove the point that the T-34 wasn't the mainstay of the Soviet tank brigades that doesn't hold up to me.

At present we don't have the ability to look at Soviet losses like we do the German ones. Maybe someday we will have.

I'm all for deflating myths of German superiority, but I think you're going a bit over the top. Also, you keep accusing Nikita of extolling German armour as flawless etc, when I didn't really see him doing any such thing???

Not actually. What he keeps saying is that the German tanks were better. When in fact they weren't. Not tank for tank better by a tremendously wide margin. I'll go back and pull some examples of his comments if you like.

German armor in MOST cases was inferior to it's Soviet counterpart. The invasion force was made up of 3561 tanks. Of that number 1033 were either PzI's or PzII's.

I think you would find that the Germans did fight T-34's with PZIII's armed with the 37mm gun. But again I gave an example of a T-34 being hit 24 times and then finally withdrawing because of a turret ring hit. Is that the tank you want to go to war in against T-34's? I don't.

The PzIII armed with the 50L42 doesn't have an even chance against a T-34 at range gun penetration wise. That is offset by the fact that at range the T-34 would have a harder time hitting the German tank due to much poorer optics. The PzIII with the 50L60 would fight the early war T-34's on an even basis with gun penetration and would usually emerge the victor because it had no issues with optics.

But again the Germans didn't fight T-34's on front armour after the first few engagements. They used their mobility and firepower. The other quote that I posted. That is where the German tanks were much superior. The ability to control the formation and get to a position where the Soviet vehicles did have weaknesses that the Germans could exploit.

Not all hits would be on the thinner armour of the turret. POS has an entire thread in the tactics section on just that issue.

There is an interesting scenario called Directive No.5 where early T34s (with, as it happens, virtually no AP ammo) and a large bunch of T26s/BT5, get their way for the first half of the scenario and are thereafter absolutely terrorised by a small force of German armour...PzIIs, Pz38t and a couple of PIIIs. It was a scenario I remembered for a long time because it felt right.

It's right if you have to use fire and maneuver to win. That's where the early war battles turn in favor of the Germans. It almost comes down to a single point. Crew experience levels. The Soviets have a hard time maneuvering their forces and then the Germans use the speed weapon on them. That doesn't always mean speed in offensive deep thrust actions but it can mean speed in a tactical sense too.

The Germans should start almost every scenario in the east as the numerical underdog. The exceptions are of course when they are on the attack and have a numerical advantage that they set up.

Using CMBB to equate directly the capabilities of WWII Eastern Front tanks and guns is not the most reliable source either. There are some very glaring issues with certain gun penetrations and armour factors.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

In English the backbone means the hard part. Not necessarily the most numerous part. The hard part of the Soviet tank force were the T-34 and KV-1's. They were, as you have pointed out, at times, not the most

For me the word backbone would normally refer to the most numerous type.

Which is not to say I'm exclusively right, just that there is more than one view of what the word means in English. Actually I've never heard (or at least I don't recall) the word used as you use it.

Well then...let's take a look at things that have backbones.


Is the backbone the most numerous part of the body? Or is it just the hardest part of the body?

I never heard it referred to as the most numerous part. That was always called the bulk.

The bulk of Soviet tank forces were the T-26's and BT's. The backbone of Soviet tank forces were the T-34 and KV.

Just as in the 1942 German tank forces, the bulk of them were PzIII's and PzIV's but the backbone was the Tiger I.

As Tanker said. It may just be semantics.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kineas]

Backbone is the (main) part, which gives solidity and foundation to the whole. But I'm not a native English speaker so feel free to ignore this comment.

http://www.google.com/search?en-US%3Aoff...3%A9s&meta=

[Nikita]

I told you to ask Steven Zaloga about those people. He knows Svirin surely, he is the leading historian and expert in Soviet tank development and, as far as I understood, consulted Zaloga on some issues.

Again: you have proved nothing, because you refuse to understand, that tank duels is not the thing, most oftenly happening in the war. And number of tanks alone does not mean everything.

About Panther Tiger and T-34 threat. Germans planned and developed their AT guns like 50 and 75mm paks much earlier, than they entered USSR. Idea of Tiger is also tracked earlier, than June 1941. Panther is a tank, that evolved from initial technical specifications, issued considering future developments of Allies tanks. Its gun penetration, armor, cost and complexity of production was simple overkill for T-34s of models, present at the moment PzV appeared. PzIV with long 75mm gun was already better armored (starting from 80mm) and gunned, than T-34s. it also had very good mobility, which, in fact, is comparable or even better, than T-34s (this was impression from people, who had chances to drive both tanks). Again: the only influence of T-34 on Panther was its slopped armor, which was unusual decision for German tank design.

I understood you are tanking production figures from GABTU reports (I had some), but I would like to take time to re-check.

Ordered OOB and actual OOB are two different things.

[Mad Russian]

Backbone is the (main) part, which gives solidity and foundation to the whole. But I'm not a native English speaker so feel free to ignore this comment.

http://www.google.com/search?en-US%3Aoff...3%A9s&meta=

Yes, all of those references refer to the strong part of something. Not the bulk.

That's why I explained what it means to me. So we can all understand where everyone is coming from.

I understand that you take back bone to mean the most common. In this case, in 1941 since there were more T-26's available you consider that to be the backbone of the Soviet tank force.

I have posted my definition so now we are clear.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

I told you to ask Steven Zaloga about those people. He knows Svirin surely, he is the leading historian and expert in Soviet tank development and, as far as I understood, consulted Zaloga on some issues.

ROFL!!!!! Maybe in Russia or Lithuania you can call up and just talk with anyone you like. That doesn't work here. While I have talked to Mr. Zaloga on a couple of occasions he doesn't take calls just everyday to discuss an issue of what he used for references in his books....lol..that's why they are listed in the back.

Again: you have proved nothing, because you refuse to understand, that tank duels is not the thing, most oftenly happening in the war. And number of tanks alone does not mean everything.

I know all about tank duels. I served in an armored division when I was younger. Believe me I know about tank duels.

Tell me this, what part of my statement don't you understand?

I made two of them.

1st statement. If the T-34's had been fully equipped with the number of AP rounds they were supposed to carry they would have killed more German tanks.

2nd statement. This would have an impact on CMBB games if the QB generator used that instead of giving them normal AP loadouts in early 1941.

About Panther Tiger and T-34 threat. Germans planned and developed their AT guns like 50 and 75mm paks much earlier, than they entered USSR.

STOP!!! You are talking about Panthers and Tigers and in the same breath move on the development of AT guns. They are not one and the same thing. There are lots of sources about the developmental histories for both of those tanks.

Here is the very first line in Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Chamberlain and Doyle. Again this is considered the bible for German armored vehicles.

After a study had been made of the Russian T-34 Hitler ordered the development of a similar vehicle in the 30 ton class.

No, nothing about this being the vehicle made after the PzIV, or anything such as that. The T-34 is mentioned in the very first line as being the major factor in the production of the Panther.

Idea of Tiger is also tracked earlier, than June 1941. Panther is a tank, that evolved from initial technical specifications, issued considering future developments of Allies tanks. Its gun penetration, armor, cost and complexity of production was simple overkill for T-34s of models, present at the moment PzV appeared. PzIV with long 75mm gun was already better armored (starting from 80mm) and gunned, than T-34s. it also had very good mobility, which, in fact, is comparable or even better, than T-34s (this was impression from people, who had chances to drive both tanks). Again: the only influence of T-34 on Panther was its slopped armor, which was unusual decision for German tank design.

I never said the Tiger was produced in response to the T-34. The Panther was. The Tiger was produced as an assault tank with heavy armour and a big gun to upgun the PzIV and give the tank a better chance at surviving assault situations.

Of course the Panther was better than the T-34. Why would you design and build a tank that wasn't better than the threat you wanted it to counter?

I understood you are tanking production figures from GABTU reports (I had some), but I would like to take time to re-check.

Take your time.

Ordered OOB and actual OOB are two different things.

That's exactly what I said. The issue with the T-34's that were operational at any one time, vs the production figures, seems to be an issue as well. So I'll address that here too.

We know exactly how many tanks were produced at any given time. We have no idea without a detailed study of how many tanks were operational at any given time. I have that information for the Germans but not the Soviets. Since I can't quote those the only figures I have are production.

In certain instances we know the operational status of certain units. I posted the Operational status for the Military Districts on 22 June 1941 in an earlier post. BUT the operational status of vehicles changes by the hour. So they are worthless except for very specific points in time...such as the start of Operation Barbarossa, Operation Zitadelle, Operation Bagration...etc...very specific points in time. They aren't even correct for those starting points because the reports were handed in at whatever time before the operation started and some tanks would have either been broken down or repaired in the time it took to make the report. The reports are obsolete the very next day.

That's just the way operational figures work. The best that you can do is try to get the points in time figures. They will be close enough for what we want anyway. We have two possibly different sets of figures. That's not all that unusual either. If you look at some of the most documented combat operations in world history Normany and the Battle of the Bulge they sources often don't agree. Good solid sources. Anyone that has ever tried to research many battles will tell you the same thing.

So if you want to build a case on operational tanks you will need a very large study and data base to do it.

So what are we left with? Trying to figure out 66 years later what happened in a five month period of history. Your answer earlier is the only correct one. Read all you can. Reason with what you read and make your judgements from those books. Some authors are better than others. Some are considered at the top of their subject. Like Glantz and Zaloga. Others are sometimes not so good.

If you want to continue to discuss early war tank battles/ developments that's fine.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Tank development in WWII.

Early war tanks were developed to destroy infantry formations.

Many of the early war tanks had MG's on them and not cannons.

But there was a movement afoot to put cannons on tanks plus MG's.

Most nations ended up with tanks that were MG only and then dual MG/cannon. The cannons on the tanks were dual purpose. They would fire both HE and AP rounds.

The British went a different route. They specialized their armored vehicles. They had MG carriers, tank destroyers and infantry attack vehicles. The tank destroyers like the Matilda could not fire HE rounds and were therefore only good against hard targets and other tanks.

As the war progressed the tanks and guns got ever larger. The tanks had more and more armour plating to help them survive the enemies guns and the guns got ever bigger with faster velocities to punch through that extra armour plating.

Take for example the German PzIV. It started the war with a 75mm gun as an infantry support tank. It was given AP rounds to help defend itself against other tanks. During the war the PzIV was upgunned several times.

It started with a 75L24, then moved up to a 75L43, then a 75L48. Each time the length of the barrel increased giving the same round a much improved AT capability.

Each time though it was a longer gun with a higher velocity. The PzIV was not being made a better infantry killer. It was being made a better tank killer.

In every case where tanks were upgunned they were given guns with faster velocities. In some instances to the detriment of their anti-infantry capabilities. The Sherman 75mm gun was a better anti-infantry weapon that the Sherman 76mm gun. The Firefly was not as good at fighting infantry targets as the 75mm gunned Sherman.

As the war progressed it was found that while the role of a tank was still primarily to destroy infantry and soft targets, hard targets and other tanks were a close secondary objective. In some cases they became the primary objective.

During the midwar years almost all of the tanks were made dual purpose.
Towards the end of the war they had started to specialize along the lines of the British model, but almost always with a eye towards a dual mode that was more capable in one aspect.


Good Hunting.

MR

[McIvan]

Backbone is the (main) part, which gives solidity and foundation to the whole. But I'm not a native English speaker so feel free to ignore this comment.

http://www.google.com/search?en-US%3Aoff...3%A9s&meta=

Yes, all of those references refer to the strong part of something. Not the bulk.

That's why I explained what it means to me. So we can both understand where the other is coming from. I understand that you take back bone to mean the most common. In this case, in 1941 since there were more T-26's available you consider that to be the backbone of the Soviet tank force.

I have posted my definition so now we are clear.

Good Hunting.

MR

To put my own point of view only, and not to disparage yours, since it is all subjective, to me the backbone holds the body together. For example, the backbone of German armour was the Panzer IV, not the King Tiger. The PzIV was the main part.

Thus I would not consider that the backbone of the Red Army was comprised of such a small element.

Anways, we can move on from that, now that it is clear where people were coming from.

Re your earlier posts, I think you are still fixated on T34s when they weren't the main Russian tank. We were, I thought, talking about the commencement of hostilities. The PzII was just fine for killing Russian T26, T35, Bt5, BT7, armoured cars, T60. That was the vast majority of the Russian tank force....wasn't it? I'm sure it was.

The vast majority of the German tank force was superior to the average Russian tank. Radios made it even more so, training adds another order of magnitude.

I acknowledge that CMBB is not the be all and end all in comparing performance.

No need btw for you to follow through with your kind offer to list Russian brigade TOEs Grand totals on the day Barbarossa commenced woud be interesting though, if you had the time....specifically the proportion of T34/KV to the other lighter tanks.