CMBB v CMAK

[Mad Russian]

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.

I agree. Now that we know the two very different definitions we can at least move on.

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.

I'm fixated on the T-34 because that's what this whole discussion started with. Of course the T-34 and KV-1's were not the most numerous. There were depending on whose numbers you use from 17,000 to 20,000 Soviet tanks on day one. Only roughly 800 of those were T-34 and KV-1's. As has been mentioned. That leaves a tremendous tank force that the German armor can deal with at least on even terms. The T-26 gun is under modeled in CMBB. Good tactics can help that though. Any and all guns in CMBB can for the most part kill from flank or rear. The 1941 Soviet 45mm ATG will kill a King Tiger from flank or rear given the chance.

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 agree in principle to that. The T-26 could easily defend itself against any of the German armor except the PzIII's. That is 2/3 of the whole force.

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

Some gamers get really taken with the issues that are wrong with the CM games. They have gotten so much right it's expected that they get a few t things wrong. Even then....again, good tactics can make up for the deficiencies. The biggest performance issues are on front armour. Shoot at them from the side or rear and they all die.

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.

You want the grand total of each type available on day one? All tank types? I'll have to check some of Glantz's facts and figures to see what he has to say about that.

There are only a very few Tank Brigade TO&E's for the Soviets. They didn't change up their basic formations very often. We can leave that for a later discussion though.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nikita]

Could you please quote German order to start up works for new 30 ton tank, that finally evolved to Panther? The quote you made is logically correct: timewise this was made indeed after Germans inspected all captured Russian tanks in Kummersdorff, including T-34. But although the point of view you are defending (Panther as specialised vehicle to answer T-34 threat) is quite popular in literature, I would like you to quote original German documents, not secondary sources or post-war memoirs, or seconary sources influenced by them. I am defending the view, that it was natural evolution, aimed at complete replacing PzIIIs and PzIVs, which, in German opinion, were close or have reached their development limits and would not be able to contest future Allied tanks. Have you read about initial specifications and requirements for Panther? What they are to do with T-34s, even of the latest models? I refered to Tiger, Paks and other things as examples of natural progress of German armament and tank building doctrine irrespectively of "findings" in Russia, which Panther development quite naturally shared. I also stated, that by 1942, when specifications for panther were issued, T-34 as such, was not a problem (in terms of achieving parity in armor-killing power) for Germans: PzIIIs and PzIVs with thicker armor plates and long-barreled guns arrived, German AP rounds (including those for ATGs) have been improved to defeat even the slopped armor. Quantities of Russian tanks, including T-34s among them, was the real problem.

I do hear for the first time, that British Matilda was positioned as a tank destroyer. Maybe I am wrong, but I would like you to present original sources, confirming that. This is really interesting. As far as I knew by now, Matilda was projected, built and postitioned as an "infantry tank". Or close support tank. Despite the fact, that it was undergunned.

Please, do not refer to modern experience. In modern armies, AT role of the tanks is considered to be primary, because there are no AT guns anymore: they are greatly inferior to modern tanks in, so to say, fire guiding systems. This is completely different and should not be mixed with WWII doctrines. The latest trends, however, already contest that and ideas to reject tanks are becoming more and more popular.

Again, I've read reports on general shortages of AP ammo of 76.2 caliber for 1942, but I never heard about any big scale tragedies, related to that, in June 1941 tank battles, worthy to be specifically depicted in the game engine (not separate scenarios). The only source, referring to that, which comes up to my mind, is Zhukov's book, but it was describing local situation and way to tackle the issue with rounds of types, which are simply not present in CMBB. Sorry, if I missed other sources in your posts, could you please state it one more time. I am really interested to read them.

BTW I heard previously about other problem with Russian AP rounds, but those are of 45mm caliber and that is properly (even too much) reflected in the game. All production of 1938 came up with the same defect: the rounds were overhardened and were breaking to fragments on German armor, instead of penetrating it. But there is nothing to do with T-34s and KVs.

As for the game engine: I would provide Russian T-34s, especially of the earlier models, with much much lower spotting capacity, because this was one of the major flaws, reported by both Russian technicians and tankers.

[Mad Russian]

[McIvan]

[Nikita]

Please, no Wikipedia as a source. I will try to find out German documents available. I have already said and will repeat once more: by the time it appeared, and even earlier, by the end of 1942, Panther was great overkill for any T-34, including future model. And specifications for Panther, especially its gun, are exceeding requirements, needed to defeat even best armored T-34/85, that appeared later, than Panther.

Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that slopped armor is French idea, which was realised in their mass produced tank.

Russian engineers were very much alarmed at improvements of German armor on late PzIII and PzIV models and thought, that Germans will continue modernising them. Guns of PzIV were considered more than adequate against KVs and T-34s. It was only IS-2, that was planned to be a though nut for PzIVs. Up to now, there is a debate, that Panther was a mistake, since it was too complicated, not extremely well armored (it had greatly differentiated armor, unlike the Tiger) and too expensive, while Germans needed numbers.

About Matilda: it is still infantry support tank with its transmission, speed and armament. They were supposed to act with their MGs. Russians did found out, that this was the only role, they were rather successful, any other tasks, like tank hunting, produced poor results.

Another interesting fact: Russians considered British Valentines as rather good tank hunters, because they were low, had gun, capable of penetration of Tiger's sides from about 500 meters (that is what reports from the front are stating, but I am not sure, if they do not mix tigers up with late PzIV models) and because it was silent: in fact it was not louder, than a truck, when driving.

[Mad Russian]

Please, no Wikipedia as a source. I will try to find out German documents available. I have already said and will repeat once more: by the time it appeared, and even earlier, by the end of 1942, Panther was great overkill for any T-34, including future model. And specifications for Panther, especially its gun, are exceeding requirements, needed to defeat even best armored T-34/85, that appeared later, than Panther.

I've given you two sources now that show the Panthers development was a direct result of the T-34. I have more but of course you will dismiss those too. So again, I ask you to show me even ONE SINGLE SOURCE that shows that the Panther was in the pre-production planning phased BEFORE July 1941.

Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that slopped armor is French idea, which was realised in their mass produced tank.

What value does this have in this conversation? The Germans didn't invent armored warfare either. Depending on who you talk to it was either the British or the Russians that did. What's that got to do with the actual fighting and application? I don't see where you are trying to go with this.

Russian engineers were very much alarmed at improvements of German armor on late PzIII and PzIV models and thought, that Germans will continue modernising them. Guns of PzIV were considered more than adequate against KVs and T-34s. It was only IS-2, that was planned to be a though nut for PzIVs. Up to now, there is a debate, that Panther was a mistake, since it was too complicated, not extremely well armored (it had greatly differentiated armor, unlike the Tiger) and too expensive, while Germans needed numbers.

We can still go back to the fact that the Germans thought the war was over and had stopped ALL tank production for a period in 1941. If the guns on a PzIV were considered adequate to kill a T-34 why was that gun being continually upgraded? The PzIV was almost always behind the curve in weapons development as a tank killer. It was never more than barely adequate and just about equal at best.

About Matilda: it is still infantry support tank with its transmission, speed and armament. They were supposed to act with their MGs. Russians did found out, that this was the only role, they were rather successful, any other tasks, like tank hunting, produced poor results.

Then please tell me why the Matilda had a main gun only capable of firing AT rounds if it wasn't intended to destroy other tanks? They were not tank hunters. They were supposed to move along with the infantry and protect them from other tanks. That's why the called them infantry support tanks.

The British for a period made all their armored vehicles specialized. They had one clearly defined task and were for the most part not dual purpose vehicles. Same is very true of Matilda.

Another interesting fact: Russians considered British Valentines as rather good tank hunters, because they were low, had gun, capable of penetration of Tiger's sides from about 500 meters (that is what reports from the front are stating, but I am not sure, if they do not mix tigers up with late PzIV models) and because it was silent: in fact it was not louder, than a truck, when driving.

The Soviets liked the Valentine enough to request them after the British were going to stop production on them.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Chipmunk]

Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that slopped armor is French idea, which was realised in their mass produced tank.

Which one? Most of the French tanks I'm familiar with have slab sided armour.

[Mad Russian]

No, your rough figures given in the paras preceding (17-20k light types v 800 T34/KV) were good enough for the purpose of the discussion.

Just found this earlier today...

The Red Army deployed 24,000 tanks.....However, like the German forces the Red Army had a lot of obsolete equipment on stock. Of the 24,000 tanks barely a quarter were operational at the time of the German attack, the remainder being in workshops near their units or far to the rear. The few remaining operational tanks consisted in the main of the old models, only 867 T-34s and 508 KVs being available for action against the Panzer Divisions.

That's a bit more specific without going into too great a detail.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mike Abberton]

Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that slopped armor is French idea, which was realised in their mass produced tank.

Which one? Most of the French tanks I'm familiar with have slab sided armour.

He might be referring to the SOMUA S-35, which IIRC, was the most advanced French tank design in 1940. It performed pretty well against the German Panzers when they met, but wasn't used very effectively at the strategic/operational level.

[Nikita]

Well, finally i found something, unfortunately not in English or German, but I'll continue digging.

Panther:
The question of change of PzIII and PzIV for a new universal tank model was raised back in 1939. German Id of project was VK 20.01. later it was changed, but I think you might be able to trace it, if needed.
I can make a detailed write up of histry of project development, but I think it would be better to concentrate on T-34 related issues.

Surely, engineers were closely co-operating with the military personell and formed up a specialised commision, which visited the front, where Guderian was present and made his statements (Oct. 18, 1941). I have all his memo on subject, essence was the following:
- high losses due to marches;
- thicker armor and better armament of new Russian tanks
- better mobility and speed of Russian tanks (which I highly doubt, because Russian Kubinka testers told directly the opposite)
- insufficient mobility of German armor in Russian conditions.
- poor spotting capacity of Russian tanks and difficulties to co-ordinate actions of more, than 10 tanks at a time (result of absence of commander's cupola and poor visibility)

His suggestions to commisions as for tanks to be produced in the future:
(1) upgrade maingun of existing tank models before rearmament to new tanks
(2) new tank shall have thicker armor to withstand Russian AT guns (both tank and field ones)
(3) improved armament
(4) improved hp/ton ratio
(5) improved mobility

Benefits of slopped armor were noted separately, but were not in the list of necessary requirements of military.

At the last meeting on Nov. 21, 1941, Guderian stated priorities as follows:
- improve armament
- improve tactical mobility
- improve armor

Accordingly, engineers started to reconsider existing project towards increase of armor and gun.
Hitler personally worked closely with the project, and was focusing engineers on armament and penetration capacity to withstand future Allied designs. F.e. he personally considered frontal armor of 80mm being not enough and requested to thick it up to 100mm, which is overkill for any Soviet tank or anti-tank gun at a time. This was stated by him on July 4, 1942.

Generally:
Germans already considered rearmament of their panzer divisions and unification of tank design. Since they met Allied tanks of improved armor and maingun, and considered, that tanks may become heavier and better armored in the future, they changed their projects accordingly, so to say to jump ahead of time, i.e. have superiority over both existing Allied tanks, and future designs.
But none of the projects in panther development history was specifically designed against T-34. As I stated previously, it was a pre-planned upgrade, revised according to findings at the front towards increase of its combat qualities. But this increase, introduction of Panther maingun, thick slopped armor was not direct result of T-34. Main conserns were related to the future possible trends in Allied tank building.

As I stated, the only feature, "copied from T-34", was introduction of slopped armor, which was rather unusual engineering decision for German hull design.

French were applying idea of slopped armor at several tanks, ex. FCM-36
http://www.chars-francais.net/images/arc...cm_006.jpg
Somua S-35
http://www.chars-francais.net/images/arc..._coupe.jpg
http://www.chars-francais.net/images/arc...350043.jpg

As for matilda, it is a separate topic and I suggest to froze discussion on it for the moment to prevent flooding. I doubt you are right about infantry support tank concept (how English people understood it when Matilda was under development), though.