View Full Version : Light Armored Vehicles
TacCovert4
07 Dec 06, 13:12
In the Set ups thread I've already posted my uses for the wonderful PzIIC, as a light armored vehicle. Light armor is one of those things that, although prevalent through both sides of any purchase page (both armored cars, assault halftracks, and extremely light tanks) throughout CM, it typically gets ignored in tourneys and in QBs.
With your help, I would like to explore why light armor gets overlooked. In real life, light armor is a key part of conflicts, uparmored humvees, LAVs, Engineer Vehicles, and others. Why do CMers seem to only go for Tanks or normal Halftracks?
Do you utilize light armor?
If you don't Why?
If you do, What has your experience proven to be the best tactics?
Lightly armored vehicles are overpriced in CM and they are unrealistically threatened due to absolute spotting and the resulting increase in return fire.
Same goes for the hammers-in-eggshell vehicles like Marders and Nashorn that can only be employed in a keyhole situation. If you don't know the map yet you don't know whether you find a suitable location so you can't risk to buy them.
TacCovert4
07 Dec 06, 13:55
And yet people routinely purchase Halftracks. Arguably the most undergunned and underarmored support vehicles in CM. And just begging for someone with a 20mm cannon to shoot.
And yet people routinely purchase Halftracks. Arguably the most undergunned and underarmored support vehicles in CM. And just begging for someone with a 20mm cannon to shoot.
Yeah but those are usually bought for the transport role.
Or because the halftracks with bigger low-velocity guns such as the short 75mm are actually bad in normal price range since the shorts guns are underpriced and very useful to shoot up infantry, buildings and the like.
Nemesis Lead
07 Dec 06, 19:42
I actually go one level lower and like to buy armored cars.
A person is given Hts when purchasing infantry like it or not. But i think in reality there were few heavy armoured tanks etc. and more often lighter stuff. Cm does not take that into account, maybe limiting the # of heavy armour bought would give more strenght to the lighter forces.:smoke:
Lightly armored vehicles are overpriced in CM and they are unrealistically threatened due to absolute spotting and the resulting increase in return fire. This is a very good point. Borg spotting is a wonderful thing when it comes to trying to neutralize the enemies armor.
I've found many opponents to be quite reckless with HTs and just begging for some of Tac's 20mm action. I always try to oblige! :D
The US 'A' version HT with the extra MG and improved gunner protection is quite nice to have at times, with its 250 ammo points. If you keep is secure and treat it as a valuable asset it's good to have around - and it may last awhile.
TacCovert4
07 Dec 06, 21:32
my experience is that light armor can be divided into several distinct sects, when it comes to combat capabilities:
1) Apcs. Halftracks and the like (stuart K-Roos) main purpose is to ship infantry along the map, with a secondary purpose of providing fire support to said infantry, almost invariably from MGs.
2) Afvs. The lightest tanks, like the IIC really belong in this catagory, as they can both carry a decent number of infantrymen, mortar crews or MGs are great ride alongs, as well as AT Rifles and zooks. But these vehicles, ranging from armored cars with rapid fire cannon, to light tanks, are designed to fight, and have enough armor to shrug off any MGs, and most AT rifles at range. They are best used as fire support for the infantry, operating close behind the lines, or racing ahead into an undefended gap in their infantry coverage to pin his legs until yours can secure the objective.
3) Close support vehicles. Stummel Halftracks and flamethrower vehicles belong here. These vehicles, thin skinned as they are, are useless operating to the rear, and are designed expressely to give infantry weapons systems they lack on a mobile platform.
4) Motorized MGs. Jeeps and your range of ultralight armored cars fit here. Too thinly skinned to duke it out with even MMGs, no ability to carry troops, and typically armed with a single MG, though sometimes 2. Their purpose in WWII was to be high speed scouts, but in CM, they are best utilized as a Machine Gun on a semi-all-terrain car. That or a bullet magnet.
TacCovert4
07 Dec 06, 21:35
A person is given Hts when purchasing infantry like it or not. But i think in reality there were few heavy armoured tanks etc. and more often lighter stuff. Cm does not take that into account, maybe limiting the # of heavy armour bought would give more strenght to the lighter forces.:smoke:
I too think that, for their worth in a battle, full blown tanks are too cheap. Unless the battle was supposed to be between armored divisions, for the most part a single Tiger, or a couple of IVs or 3-4 Shermans would have been all that could have been thrown into CM QBs, which would have been mostly improv. But Jeeps were ubiquitous, as were some of the lighter ACs, so they should be cheap enough to be a viable purchase option.
KGPanzerschrecK
08 Dec 06, 00:17
I agree that the light armor is over priced in CM. In the case of the Germans, why buy a PzII when you can spend half again as many points and have a wonderful Stug? The true workhorse of the German Mechanized forces. A stat some of you guys may not know is that Stugs, in all their models, Killed more enemy armor than all the other German armor combined.
Nemesis Lead
08 Dec 06, 00:30
my experience is that light armor can be divided into several distinct sects, when it comes to combat capabilities:
1) Apcs. Halftracks and the like (stuart K-Roos) main purpose is to ship infantry along the map, with a secondary purpose of providing fire support to said infantry, almost invariably from MGs.
2) Afvs. The lightest tanks, like the IIC really belong in this catagory, as they can both carry a decent number of infantrymen, mortar crews or MGs are great ride alongs, as well as AT Rifles and zooks. But these vehicles, ranging from armored cars with rapid fire cannon, to light tanks, are designed to fight, and have enough armor to shrug off any MGs, and most AT rifles at range. They are best used as fire support for the infantry, operating close behind the lines, or racing ahead into an undefended gap in their infantry coverage to pin his legs until yours can secure the objective.
3) Close support vehicles. Stummel Halftracks and flamethrower vehicles belong here. These vehicles, thin skinned as they are, are useless operating to the rear, and are designed expressely to give infantry weapons systems they lack on a mobile platform.
4) Motorized MGs. Jeeps and your range of ultralight armored cars fit here. Too thinly skinned to duke it out with even MMGs, no ability to carry troops, and typically armed with a single MG, though sometimes 2. Their purpose in WWII was to be high speed scouts, but in CM, they are best utilized as a Machine Gun on a semi-all-terrain car. That or a bullet magnet.
Where would a British Humber III AC fit into the above?
You guys will laugh.....but those things are killing machines! They are:
1) Armored to survive HMG and ATR fire
2) Have 2 machine guns (and one of them is an HMG with good AP qualities)
3) They have 100 points of ammo.
4) From numbers 1 through 3......they kill infantry like there is no tomorrow.
5) They cost almost nothing!
I used these versus Waleed and they butchered him.
TacCovert4
08 Dec 06, 13:51
They would fit as an armored fighting vehicle.
Radio cars, Italian armored Cars, and Jeeps pretty much cover the mobile MG portion.
I'm also going to have to keep these in mind for future games.
The problem is- in most scenarios the true "scouting" part is already over when turn 1 begins. You know the enemy is within X meters of your forces (look at the map), you have a great idea as to his strength (check out the points spent), you know exactly what the enemy has to do/wants (look at the flags) and you know how long he has to do whatever (look at the # of turns).
The light AV's job is just about done except come into direct contact with the enemy. If the game was faster and longer bigger maps would allow for some decent scouting with LAV's.
Nemesis Lead
08 Dec 06, 17:07
The problem is- in most scenarios the true "scouting" part is already over when turn 1 begins. You know the enemy is within X meters of your forces (look at the map), you have a great idea as to his strength (check out the points spent), you know exactly what the enemy has to do/wants (look at the flags) and you know how long he has to do whatever (look at the # of turns).
The light AV's job is just about done except come into direct contact with the enemy. If the game was faster and longer bigger maps would allow for some decent scouting with LAV's.
I largely agree with Kerry with the below caveat.
There was a huge debate on this on Battlefront.com. I got into it with JasonC who is very smart, but not as smart as he thinks. :laugh:
In my "doctrine," Light Armor can do 2 things:
1) Serve as an infantry support vehicle.
2) Be annoying enough as an infantry support vehicle that your opponent is forces to reveal AT Guns or Armor to kill the Light Armor.
In the case of a 30 point Humber III......you can inflict such pain on your opponent that he is forced to hit you with an AT Gun. You then kill the AT Gun and he loses an 80 point AT Gun while you are down 30 points..... If he hits you with armor.....you should be ready to take on his armor.
The bottom line.....they are bait, but they are bait that can bite! :bite:
Anything that kills enemy infantry is a good thing. However, the Humber, in all of the variations I could find, had no more then 15mm of armor. The III series had 15 at 0 top and 15 at 45 dg hull. Tac's 20mm killing machine would take it apart and AA gun cannot always be spotted right off.
Just something to consider. There are also schrecks to consider.
PONL brought a couple of those things forward just prior to my autosurrender in an A/D game. They worked quite nice. I didn't have any AT guns to counter just tanks which he picked on long range as they fired at the Humbers.
Off Topic: Jay, I scored a PS3 today! Walked into Walmart at 1030 this morning and two more 60GB units had just arrived. Manager brought me one out. I got it home without being mugged! Sweet picture on 70 inches of HD! I'll be in your neighborhood Dec 22-23????????????? We'll have to see if Everett's projector is available:laugh:
CM on 70" ain't bad either!
Nemesis Lead
08 Dec 06, 19:21
Bertram--on the PS3.....sweet! I will be around when you are in town! Let's beat up on Gary some more! :devious:
Also......I suspect my wife is trying to get me one for Christmas. Perhaps I might be able to contribute a game or two to our fun. Then again.....she might just get me clothes or something :cry:
Lurker---quite correct. The 20mm cannon will eat the Humber. The thing is.......few people actually bring them! This is what JasonC and I argued about. He felt that EVERYONE brought many 20mm cannons. I have played hundreds of games and hardly ever see these things.
15mm of armor makes an AC resistant (not proof) to HMG and ATR fire. They also have a closed top so airbursts are less effective. Try a test with these guys against infantry. They are one of the best units in the game!
Lurker---quite correct. The 20mm cannon will eat the Humber. The thing is.......few people actually bring them! This is what JasonC and I argued about. He felt that EVERYONE brought many 20mm cannons. I have played hundreds of games and hardly ever see these things. Interesting point. Whenever I'm the German I always intend to purchase 3 or 4. Then I end up selecting other stuff and do not always have room for them, and during the game find myself wishing I had them. :)
I had considered the MMG carrier once (nice 150 ammo load) but it seems your Humber is better - better armor.
Nemesis Lead
08 Dec 06, 19:49
The Humber also has dual MGs and (even better) one of the MGs is a Besa 15mm HMG.
In my game with Bertram, a burst of Besa fire struck Bertram's Marder. The Marder exploded!
The Humber III is truly one of the best units in CM..... A mere 120 points gets you a platoon of 3!
In my game with Bertram, a burst of Besa fire struck Bertram's Marder. The Marder exploded!:surprise: :shock: :scream:
That wasn't a frontal hit I hope.
Nemesis Lead
08 Dec 06, 20:08
Correct--it was a side or rear hit.
The Besa is tough versus Halftracks. Perhaps a little better than the US .50 cal HMG in terms of AP capability. No where near a 20mm cannon however.
Before using the Humber III, I had never heard of the British Besa HMG. I have only found the Besa on the Humber and the Besa is a Beast! :laugh:
Thanks. I'll tuck that away as important data for the next time I use the Brits. :smoke:
TacCovert4
09 Dec 06, 16:51
Now you see why I love the IIC.
Armored enough to shrug off MG hits, armored all around, which helps it if caught in a light mortar barrage, a couple of MGs of its own, but the key is that it has a RAPID FIRE 20mm cannon. AT vehicles and Tanks have the major problem that they only fire 1 round at a time, and then not perfectly accurate. What does it matter if you're shooting at the AC that is raping your troops with an 88 if you can't hit the bloody thing. The 20mm seems to be much more accurate, and has the advantage of firing 3 round bursts, which increase hit percentage accordingly. plus, 20mm rapid fire is better at keeping MGers heads down and pinning AT gunners than slow firing larger calibres. True, you lose the potential for the 1 shot kill, but how often does that happen anyway. And if you lose a IIC, you're not dead yet. If your enemy can't move his troops in halftracks, can't set up overwatching MG fire, and cannot manuever his AT assets in the open, you've gained battlefield supremacy without revealing your 'real' tanks.
I've always liked the IIC for all the reasons you mentioned. But as shreck says, for a modest amount more you can pick up a Stug. I'm usually torn at purchase time between at least one IIc and other stuff. Decisions decisions! :nuts:
Mad Russian
03 Jan 07, 20:14
I agree that the light armor is over priced in CM. In the case of the Germans, why buy a PzII when you can spend half again as many points and have a wonderful Stug? The true workhorse of the German Mechanized forces. A stat some of you guys may not know is that Stugs, in all their models, Killed more enemy armor than all the other German armor combined.
That shouldn't surprise you. Look at the numbers of StuG's produced vs tanks, the fact that they were a special branch of the artillery, the fact that they bracketed their target which meant getting an almost guaranteed hit by round three instead of walking the rounds to the target like tankers, and the fact that as a defensive weapon they often fought from ambush.
Good Hunting.
MR
KGPanzerschrecK
03 Jan 07, 23:23
When i first read about it, it didnt suprise me, i knew what they were capable of, but other people have looked at me like im insane when i tell them that.
It was just conformation on something i already knew from gameplay experience in several WWII games, Stugs are a cheap, highly effective tank killer because of their decent armor, low profile and after losing the stubby 75mm gun, they had very effective guns on them. 3 great factors in a tank killing platform. Id take a Stug over a MkIV almost every time, thats how much i like and prefer them.
The Purist
03 Jan 07, 23:44
3 great factors in a tank killing platform. Id take a Stug over a MkIV almost every time, thats how much i like and prefer them....
It is a good weapon but the lack of a turret can be a serious handicap (which is historically accurate) Against players who are fimiliar with maneuver tactics or in a fluid situation, the StuG III can be a a serious handicap compare to a Mk IV.
KGPanzerschrecK
04 Jan 07, 00:38
...
It is a good weapon but the lack of a turret can be a serious handicap (which is historically accurate) Against players who are fimiliar with maneuver tactics or in a fluid situation, the StuG III can be a a serious handicap compare to a Mk IV.
Very true but i use mine in packs and use terrain features {Hills & Woods for example} to cancel out worries of flank shots and when i use Stugs they are always protected by other weapon systems, ATG's on defense and Tanks on offense.
In more than one game, mostly CMBB games, i have lured many a foolish platoon of T-34's to their death by placing a group of Stugs in a "Obvious" overrun posistion only to have the pack of T-34's in turn ambushed by another group of Stugs or other Tanks. You can use their own lack of turrets your advantage in certain situations if you have an aggressive opponent who wishes to sweep in on their flanks or behind them for an easy kill.
One of my favorite combos in all of CM is to team up a platoon of Tigers with 2 platoons of Stugs. You have the best of both worlds and awesome killing power for anything you come across. And its fairly cheap as far as three platoons of German armor goes. :D
Run some tests and see how T-34's do against Stugs and then run the same test with MkIV's, Stugs will win out in the long run every time.
TacCovert4
04 Jan 07, 01:00
Shreck, I believe that numbers has been taking your clinic. We shall see how it will help him. Currently in our battle, our tanks made the biggest mistake of all time, they ran into each other without adequate intel. My Sherman came around the bend in a road shrouded by trees at the same time a Stug and a IV of his came around a bend about 250 meters away. Currently the fight consisted of my fast turretted Sherman getting a shot off before his IV could rotate and depress, causing it to reverse and block itself with the Stug. My Sherman then fired 3 rounds at the Stug, missing every time (and veterans too), which has succeeded in first hiding, then revealing itself again, without actually shooting anything. Had these been halftracks and a IIC, the fight would have been decided in 2 shots max.
KGPanzerschrecK
04 Jan 07, 03:01
Shreck, I believe that numbers has been taking your clinic. We shall see how it will help him. Currently in our battle, our tanks made the biggest mistake of all time, they ran into each other without adequate intel. My Sherman came around the bend in a road shrouded by trees at the same time a Stug and a IV of his came around a bend about 250 meters away. Currently the fight consisted of my fast turretted Sherman getting a shot off before his IV could rotate and depress, causing it to reverse and block itself with the Stug. My Sherman then fired 3 rounds at the Stug, missing every time (and veterans too), which has succeeded in first hiding, then revealing itself again, without actually shooting anything. Had these been halftracks and a IIC, the fight would have been decided in 2 shots max.
Sounds interesting. Fill us in on who wins this "battle of the bump into".
Shermans on the other hand are a different matter. I have more trouble with my Stugs against them than i do T-34's. Its not so much their gun but the Tanks speed, turret speed and higher rate of fire. Frontaly its not so much of a problem but if they get on your side, watch out. Same goes for the super speedy Stuarts, they are very effective Stug and MkIV killers if you can sneak in close then spring on them with four or five at once and hit them from the sides.
There is a tale in KG lore of two members playing a game and a battle came down to the one guy sneaking a Halftrack around to the rear of a Bogged Stug. The HT made the crew of the Stug bail after 4 or 5 turns of MG'ing the rear armor of the Stug and that bail tipped the balance in his favor from a draw to a minor victory. It just shows that anything is possible and this is an instance where having a MkIV would of saved his bacon. Even i, the lover of all things Stug have to admit that.
...
It is a good weapon but the lack of a turret can be a serious handicap (which is historically accurate) Against players who are fimiliar with maneuver tactics or in a fluid situation, the StuG III can be a a serious handicap compare to a Mk IV.It's a reasonable give and take.
The Stug should survive a frontal attack from a Stew with no trouble whereas the thin PZiv turret may not. In BO it's a one shot kill from Stew to PZiv if it's a turret hit. I'm not sure how that match-up plays out in AK/BB.
The Stug is one of the best German armor to give the annoying 'no-effect' penetration. Other German units seem to KO immediately on penetration. The Stug III (?) has curved armor and at a good distance will deflect some allied 75 or 85 rounds. The PZiv turret won't usually.
The Stug is more cost effective then the PZiv, but the PZiv has a much better ammo load and a reasonably quick turret.
Schreck makes a good point on their usage. If the flanks are covered by various AT weapons then it's not a huge problem with mobility. However, when in CMBB, the Purist's point is a key factor in rotation times. In BB the rotation is painfully slow; much more so then in CMBO, and even CMAK from what I hear. So make sure your flanks are well covered in that game.
The StuG in CMBB "suffers" from undermodeling of the Soviet 76.2mm L/42 gun on the T-34 (model 1941, the early ones have a L/31 gun).
Realistically the 76.2mm L/42 should penetrate a 80mm front of the StuG at around 500m and below. In the game the StuG is pretty safe even at point-black, and even if you penetrate you often get no effect.
The Pz IV in CM is the fvcked soup chicken because although the thin turret front was there is reality, the real Pz IV's turret front is very small, if you compute out the angled lower corners. And some of remaining surface is covered by the 30mm gun mantlet. Yet in all CM versions the Pz IV has the "standard" turret size given to all CM vehicles with a turret.
Also, if you take a (real) StuG and Pz IV hull down perfectly, so that only the gun itself shows over the cover then in reality the Pz IV has a much smaller area to hit. You can only hit what is at gun height or above. But for the StuG that is the full width of the vehicle, for the Pz IV it is only the turret width.
Not to mention that the real StuG cannot defend itself when retreating backwards out of the hulldown position unless the drive paths happens to be perfectly straight away from the threat. But in CM you can just plot that course in almost all cases, where in reality driving a heavy AFV backwards is dicey at best. No way you can align the hull to anything under the circumstances. In the Pz IV the gunner can shoot wherever he pleases, no matter that the driver idiot does.
At the same time CM overprices the turret and underprices the StuG. No wonder it makes an attractive offer :)
Considering all of the Stug's limitations I don't consider it under-priced. :)
Don't forget that with all of the Stug's seeming haphazard front armor angles, a deflection from an early year 76.2 isn't that unrealistic. One thing I read (somewhere on a web tank site) was that much of the early to mid year Russian AP projectiles was of a very poor quality and would often shatter on impact - something not too evident in CMBB IMO.
As to the PZiv getting a designer shaft, I agree. Then again, more than a few german things got the shaft as well. But don't get me started!
Don't forget that with all of the Stug's seeming haphazard front armor angles, a deflection from an early year 76.2 isn't that unrealistic. One thing I read (somewhere on a web tank site) was that much of the early to mid year Russian AP projectiles was of a very poor quality and would often shatter on impact - something not too evident in CMBB IMO.
The claims that 80mm penetration should come out of the 76.2mm L/42 at around 500m already take the projectile quality into account.
The deflection due to angles is taken care of by a different mechanism in CM. You don't have to artificially mess with armor thickness or penetration values to account for it.
The claims that 80mm penetration should come out of the 76.2mm L/42 at around 500m already take the projectile quality into account.How are you determining this?
The deflection due to angles is taken care of by a different mechanism in CM. You don't have to artificially mess with armor thickness or penetration values to account for it.This is something done bigtime by the designers by giving most of the German TDs a curved status for the upper-hull or super structure. I can see curved for the Stug due to the angles mentioned, but not the JPIV and V.
How are you determining this?
I don't do my own research on WW2 armor penetration.
The most expansive work so far is:
"World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery"
Publisher: Overmatch Press
Authors: Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston
In addition to that book, you will not find a other serious publication that gives the 76.2mm L/42 with the ammo of 1941/1942 worse than 500m penetration of 80mm homogeneous armor at 90 degrees.
This is something done bigtime by the designers by giving most of the German TDs a curved status for the upper-hull or super structure. I can see curved for the Stug due to the angles mentioned, but not the JPIV and V.
The "curved" rating for the Jagdpanzer IV and the Jagdpanther in CMBB and CMAK is indeed a joke. I've never seen such a fine example of a simple plain shield plate anywhere else. They didn't have that mistake in CMBO :(
Sounds like a very interesting book. What does it say re the 88LL accuracy? From what I've read at some sites CM seems way off in that regard.
I think we've deviated slightly from the light armor topic. :) I'm sure Tac will forgive us.
Sounds like a very interesting book. What does it say re the 88LL accuracy? From what I've read at some sites CM seems way off in that regard.
My copy is still in some movement box, but in general the book doesn't say much on hit probability.
It concentrates straight on the development on a formula for armor penentration of WW2 area shots against angled steel armor, solid, face-hardened or homogeneous. It has some suggestions for hit probability distribution but not a table for each gun.
Having said that, the problems with Nashorns and the like getting shot up by return fire and never hitting anything themselves lay elsewhere in the CMx1 engine. If you don't have enough of my bashing yet I can give a little more :halo:
I think we've deviated slightly from the light armor topic. :) I'm sure Tac will forgive us.
Maybe rename the thread title?
The Purist
04 Jan 07, 23:12
If you take the Jgdpz IV and other sloped German armour and shoot at it fom other than straight on the plate not only slopes back but also "away",...making for a very 'slippery' surface when the shell hits. Perhaps that is where the "curve" comes from. :hmmm:
Overall though, in the StuG vs Pz IV discussion I think we need to take the QB scenarios out of the equation. A QB allows the player to choose a tailor-made force that was never really available to a German commander in WWII. To properly gauge the combat potential, defensive or offence, it is necessary to put the vehicles in a more historical context.
Pick a period,...ie late 43,...and set up a 4 - 5 km front. Next take an infantry regiment with its AT pltn of 50mm guns, it 75mm and 150mm Inf guns and deploy it as you see fit along that frontage. Fold in two observers from the div. 105mm artillery batteries, then add 4 of the divisional 75mm AT guns and either 4 Stug III or 4 Pz kw IVH to your defense.
Now,...randomly pick one battalion sector and throw a Russian rifle regiment supported by a battalion of 21 T-34s at the battalion frontage (supported by rockets and and barrage of 152 and 122mm artillery). Now,....what is your preferred weapon,...StuG or Pz IV?:)
I'll take the Pz IVs and the tactical flexibility of a rotating turret.
KGPanzerschrecK
05 Jan 07, 00:01
If you take the Jgdpz IV and other sloped German armour and shoot at it fom other than straight on the plate not only slopes back but also "away",...making for a very 'slippery' surface when the shell hits. Perhaps that is where the "curve" comes from. :hmmm:
Overall though, in the StuG vs Pz IV discussion I think we need to take the QB scenarios out of the equation. A QB allows the player to choose a tailor-made force that was never really available to a German commander in WWII. To properly gauge the combat potential, defensive or offence, it is necessary to put the vehicles in a more historical context.
Pick a period,...ie late 43,...and set up a 4 - 5 km front. Next take an infantry regiment with its AT pltn of 50mm guns, it 75mm and 150mm Inf guns and deploy it as you see fit along that frontage. Fold in two observers from the div. 105mm artillery batteries, then add 4 of the divisional 75mm AT guns and either 4 Stug III or 4 Pz kw IVH to your defense.
Now,...randomly pick one battalion sector and throw a Russian rifle regiment supported by a battalion of 21 T-34s at the battalion frontage (supported by rockets and and barrage of 152 and 122mm artillery). Now,....what is your preferred weapon,...StuG or Pz IV?:)
I'll take the Pz IVs and the tactical flexibility of a rotating turret.
I couldnt agree with you more. That is if i were there IRL, i would of picked the MkIV over the Stug every time. But i was speaking in game terms about my preference of the Stug over the MkIV, not RL. But because of the way the MkIV's turret gets treated by the game, ill take my Stug and take my chances without the turret. I guess it all comes down to what your comfortable with and have a personal preference for.
The Purist
05 Jan 07, 01:10
I couldnt agree with you more. That is if i were there IRL, i would of picked the MkIV over the Stug every time....
:) The scenario I painted was meant in game turns. :D ...but I know what you mean. There is the gamey side of QBs (perfect balancing of forces outside of historical limitations, all for fun) and then there is scenario design for accuracy (recreating a historical action with the kit that was actually present).
Cheers. :thumup:
If you take the Jgdpz IV and other sloped German armour and shoot at it fom other than straight on the plate not only slopes back but also "away",...making for a very 'slippery' surface when the shell hits. Perhaps that is where the "curve" comes from. :hmmm:
"Curved" in CM means a random angle picked on hit between 0 degrees (vertical hit, no angle improvement at all) and some undocumented end angle. It is meant for things like the Panther mantlet that you can hit in the middle and have no angle.
Very clearly the Jagdpaner IV and Jagdpanther don't deserve that same rating. With the exception of the gun mantlet the overwhelming majority of the front presented is straigt angled. The is no such zero angle area as the Panther has. Still, BFC decided to treat them the same.
This severely undermodels these vehicles.
BTW, Hetzer is affected, too.
Overall though, in the StuG vs Pz IV discussion I think we need to take the QB scenarios out of the equation. A QB allows the player to choose a tailor-made force that was never really available to a German commander in WWII. To properly gauge the combat potential, defensive or offence, it is necessary to put the vehicles in a more historical context.
Pick a period,...ie late 43,...and set up a 4 - 5 km front. Next take an infantry regiment with its AT pltn of 50mm guns, it 75mm and 150mm Inf guns and deploy it as you see fit along that frontage. Fold in two observers from the div. 105mm artillery batteries, then add 4 of the divisional 75mm AT guns and either 4 Stug III or 4 Pz kw IVH to your defense.
Now,...randomly pick one battalion sector and throw a Russian rifle regiment supported by a battalion of 21 T-34s at the battalion frontage (supported by rockets and and barrage of 152 and 122mm artillery). Now,....what is your preferred weapon,...StuG or Pz IV?:)
I'll take the Pz IVs and the tactical flexibility of a rotating turret.
The problem with CM overpricing the Pz IV (and turreted tanks in general) doesn't disappear when you go from Quickbattle to scenario.
Since the outcome of a battle fought to the end, the points rating, is almost always dominated by the knockout points and almost never by the flag value you pay for it in the end.
If you get a Panzer IV and the five-man crew killed you pay the price at the end.
The territory gained, and I think we both agree that the Pz IV will be substantially better at gaining territory than StuGs or Jagdpanzers, is undervalued to a point where the Pz IV isn't worth it even if you don't have to buy it.
The unrealistically high chance to hit the thin turret front doesn't help either.
If you take the Jgdpz IV and other sloped German armour and shoot at it fom other than straight on the plate not only slopes back but also "away",...making for a very 'slippery' surface when the shell hits. Perhaps that is where the "curve" comes from. :hmmm: There is always that possibility, but the Russian TDs had virtually identical slope and angles and non of them are curved. Over all, I've seen too much questionable tweaking of the German forces to consider it anything more than a watered-down effect.
...Now,....what is your preferred weapon,...StuG or Pz IV?:)
I'll take the Pz IVs and the tactical flexibility of a rotating turret. Interesting argument. As I said, they both have their positives. I do like the better ammo load of the PZiv, but the Stugs durability in surviving hits is much better. And you can get more of them if you take plts.
Decisions, decisions! :)
Very clearly the Jagdpaner IV and Jagdpanther don't deserve that same rating. With the exception of the gun mantlet the overwhelming majority of the front presented is straigt angled. The is no such zero angle area as the Panther has. Still, BFC decided to treat them the same.
This severely undermodels these vehicles.
BTW, Hetzer is affected, too. Agreed. I could get into a gripe fest with you on what they did to the German armor overall. :)
Your previous mention of the Nashorn is a good point. Try a test with them at 500 mtrs vs T34-85s. If they're pre-targeted the Nashorns have a slight edge. If they're left to find their own targets, buttoned or open, the Ts wipe them out nearly ever time. Apparently the designers felt the Nashorn's optics were a hinderance at a close range of over 5 US football fields! :rolleyes:
Still that doesn't explain why they miss at longer ranges as often as any other gun, even though they were reported to have a very high rate of first shot kills at up to 2000 mtrs.
KGPanzerschrecK
05 Jan 07, 23:47
Agreed. I could get into a gripe fest with you on what they did to the German armor overall. :)
Your previous mention of the Nashorn is a good point. Try a test with them at 500 mtrs vs T34-85s. If they're pre-targeted the Nashorns have a slight edge. If they're left to find their own targets, buttoned or open, the Ts wipe them out nearly ever time. Apparently the designers felt the Nashorn's optics were a hinderance at a close range of over 5 US football fields! :rolleyes:
Still that doesn't explain why they miss at longer ranges as often as any other gun, even though they were reported to have a very high rate of first shot kills at up to 2000 mtrs.
I agree with you that Nashorns in the game dont reflect their usefulness IRL. Check out this story i got over at AchtungPanzer.com -
"The most notable Nashorn ace was platoon commander of 1st company of sPzJagAbt 519, Junior Lieutenant Albert Ernst. He later commanded the 1st company of sPzJagAbt 512 (equipped with Jagdtigers). On December 23rd of 1943, he destroyed some 14 Soviet tanks in a single day using only 21 round of ammunition. The engagement took place near Vitebsk and Albert Ernst received a nickname "Tiger of Vitebsk". In December of 1943, Ernst destroyed total of 19 enemy tanks and on January 22nd of 1944,
he was awarded the Knight's Cross.
It is also reported that in early March of 1945, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed a Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf."
Mad Russian
21 Jan 07, 23:35
I agree that the light armor is over priced in CM. In the case of the Germans, why buy a PzII when you can spend half again as many points and have a wonderful Stug? The true workhorse of the German Mechanized forces. A stat some of you guys may not know is that Stugs, in all their models, Killed more enemy armor than all the other German armor combined.
Something else you may not know is that StuG crews were artillerymen and not tankers. They were trained differently and that is one of the reasons they did so well.
Good Hunting.
MR
VERY interesting discussion, guys. I wish I had the time to delve into this war game to the depth you all have.
Redwolf: "The "curved" rating for the Jagdpanzer IV and the Jagdpanther in CMBB and CMAK is indeed a joke. I've never seen such a fine example of a simple plain shield plate anywhere else. They didn't have that mistake in CMBO."
Redwolf, I've read a couple dozen of your posts in the past day or two since I discovered this forum. I get the idea you really, REALLY HATE the CM series. It would be better for humankind if this pox of a so-called wargame had never even been invented, had never visited its vile pestilence on this planet. :)
Personally, I love this series. All the more because it seems to keep you guys who know way more than me debating the technical points, and therefore keeps me learning by reading.
Redwolf: "If you don't have enough of my bashing yet I can give a little more."
Please give me more.
Carry on.
Robus
Whatever makes you happy, Robus :)
The point is - there is great game design going on in CM, and then they wreck much of the fun with stupid little mistakes like turn rates and some combat parameters, and then they lock out any kind of modding harder than most games so you can't fix it yourself either.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.