Does tanks even try to have realistic stats

[Susi]

About 76 mm gun:
The 76 mm was capable of knocking out a Panther at normal combat ranges from the flanks or rear, but could not overcome the glacis plate. Due to its 55 degree slope, the Panther's 80 mm (3.1 in) glacis had a line of sight thickness of 140 mm (5.5 in) with actual effectiveness being even greater.

7.5 cm KwK 42
(75mm L/70) of the Panther, which could penetrate 185 mm (7.3 in) of unsloped RHA at 100 meters (110 yd) and 149 mm (5.9 in) at 1,000 meters (1,100 yd) using the usual PzGr.39/42 round.

So German Panther should be able to knock out Sherman frontly at any range and 76 could not knock out Panter at any range frontaly.

Other thing is range of german tanks which is limited to 1200! Even that Tiger I was capable of knocking a M4 out frontally from over 2,000 meters

I could understand those gamey changes to make german tanks weaker if german side would be over powered.
But if you go to look at leaderboard. In top 20 there is only 5 players who prefer to play german side more.

 

[Karlburg]

This game has arbitrarily chosen to give tanks the 1200m range or the 1000m range(with a couple 800m outliers). That's just how the mechanics are, the same way armor is just one number.

The 76mm gun is AP13. The Panther D has Front Armor 13. This gives a very tiny chance of a 76mm gun penetrating the front armor of a Panther (2.7%). This could be chalked up to hitting the shot trap or whatever crazy things could happen. The Panther D will nearly always win a frontal, max range engagement with 76mm armed vehicles, and the Panther D is the worst Panther. This is not why the Germans struggle in 1v1.

Also, the Panther's AP 17 can easily penetrate the FA 9-11 that Shermans have at maximum range. Just don't get in a close range engagement.

The Germans struggle in 1v1 because their units are more expensive and they don't have divisions as efficiently well-rounded as 15 scots or as overpowered as 4arm. I think once you see those two decks toned down, you'll see Axis do better in 1v1.

"Realistic stats" is the cry of the person with a passing knowledge of history anyway.

 

[Herr_Robert]

Have you even played the game? The German heavy tanks are awesome in team games. The Allies are better in ranked 1v1 because they have more cost-effective low-end units. When you have to hold the entire line on your own, it's often hard to spare precious resources on heavy tanks.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

On release, if you said that Allied decks had the advantage you were generally howled down as a heretic, if I recall.

The game is loosely thematically realistic, but it is a game, not a sim, and there is a competitive rather than simulative side to it...so the stats are tweaked in favour of the game/comp aspect.

 

[Karlburg]

On release, if you said that Allied decks had the advantage you were generally howled down as a heretic, if I recall.

The game is loosely thematically realistic, but it is a game, not a sim, and there is a competitive rather than simulative side to it...so the stats are tweaked in favour of the game/comp aspect.

To b fair, there have been some changes since release, and we didn't really understand the game quite so well at that point. I think everyone spotted scots as a standout right from the start and eugen still hasn't relevantly nerfed them.

 

[LegioX]

I think this game does a great job of "simulating" ww2. I mean everything cant be 100% accurate, but for example when a KT comes onto the field I get that "oh crap" feeling as allies. Takes a lot of resources to bring that sucker down, which it should.

 

[dmdelor]

The various people who have replied pretty much nailed it:

-The ranges are not real-world ranges, they're compressed game ranges that were further binned into two groups to make designing and understanding the units more manageable.

-The armor values may be a bit weak, but that's a compromise for playability. Even as it is the tanks are expensive to the point of being challenging to use in a game with normal income and a small player count. Hard to save for, and also hard to field while also keeping enough air superiority to not have them spend the whole game bombed and stunned.

-Despite their "unrealistic" stats, the top-tier German tanks are still extremely good. If you know what you're doing, a Panther G or King Tiger should absolutely dominate open spaces where it can hang back at a kilometer or more. The Panther D and Tiger E are at least something the Allies can reasonably threaten, but they're still extremely potent units that are generally very difficult for the Allies to cost-effectively counter. Divisions without a towed 17-lbdr, in particular, are in for a bad day if they don't get clever.

To b fair, there have been some changes since release

Yeah. There were winners and losers on both sides, IMHO on the whole the Axis have generally gotten weaker since launch, and that's mostly a good thing. A partial list of major changes:

-Autocannons got a vet nerf targetting them, which already disproportionately impacts the more APC-happy Axis, and then on top of that several Axis APCs were specifically targeted for ammo reduction.
-Several Allied machine gun teams got longer ranged and/or cheaper, making the Allies a lot less outclassed in MG support.
-The FSJ, one of the most dominant divisions for a long time, were particularly strongly impacted by the vet nerf.
-AA got worthwhle, which impacts air on both sides but in particular means it's more reasonable to stop German AT planes from erasing your armored columns. (and, IIRC, at least one of the AT planes got an AP nerf? Don't see it in the notes for the two major balance patches, though)
-Several Allied RPG teams got buffed, making them at least semi-worthwhile.
-Allied armored recon such as the staghound and M8 generally got cheaper and more accurate, which helped make them more worthwhile despite their slower-firing autocannons.
-Several Allied divisions got broad price cuts, or in the case of the 3rd, an income boost plus a huge Sherman 75 discount. Axis got some too, but my overall read is that the Allies were the main beneficiary here.

Meanwhile, the biggest hit to the Allies has been the significant off-board artillery nerfs, since the Axis get more and better MLRS to fall back on. The 2ID, in particular, got noticeably weaker from that, although The Division Bell gave them a hand back up in the form of more riflemen per card.

There's a reason why there was a lot more complaining about the Axis during the beta and at launch than there are now- they were a lot better back then.

 

[xXSunSlayerXx]

Does tanks even try to have realistic stats

No.
It's a video game.

 

[Karlburg]

Yeah. There were winners and losers on both sides, IMHO on the whole the Axis have generally gotten weaker since launch, and that's mostly a good thing. A partial list of major changes:

-Autocannons got a vet nerf targetting them, which already disproportionately impacts the more APC-happy Axis, and then on top of that several Axis APCs were specifically targeted for ammo reduction.
-Several Allied machine gun teams got longer ranged and/or cheaper, making the Allies a lot less outclassed in MG support.
-The FSJ, one of the most dominant divisions for a long time, were particularly strongly impacted by the vet nerf.
-AA got worthwhle, which impacts air on both sides but in particular means it's more reasonable to stop German AT planes from erasing your armored columns. (and, IIRC, at least one of the AT planes got an AP nerf? Don't see it in the notes for the two major balance patches, though)
-Several Allied RPG teams got buffed, making them at least semi-worthwhile.
-Allied armored recon such as the staghound and M8 generally got cheaper and more accurate, which helped make them more worthwhile despite their slower-firing autocannons.
-Several Allied divisions got broad price cuts, or in the case of the 3rd, an income boost plus a huge Sherman 75 discount. Axis got some too, but my overall read is that the Allies were the main beneficiary here.

Meanwhile, the biggest hit to the Allies has been the significant off-board artillery nerfs, since the Axis get more and better MLRS to fall back on. The 2ID, in particular, got noticeably weaker from that, although The Division Bell gave them a hand back up in the form of more riflemen per card.

There's a reason why there was a lot more complaining about the Axis during the beta and at launch than there are now- they were a lot better back then.

The 2ID got pretty well compensated by getting a card of vet 57mm AT guns as well as a buff to their phase A vet shermans. Honestly, they're still a very good division in 1v1, just not as good as the best two. They've always been good.

Poland also got a card of vet 6 pdrs to strengthen a deck that was pretty good at 1v1 before.

A lot of the changes were mostly internal, but I do still think Axis needs some help for 1v1 play. The trouble is, how do you buff them without adversely affecting team games? I'd start by hitting the two worst offenders in allied decks, 15 scots and 4AD and then see what happens.

 

[LegioX]

The 2ID got pretty well compensated by getting a card of vet 57mm AT guns as well as a buff to their phase A vet shermans. Honestly, they're still a very good division in 1v1, just not as good as the best two. They've always been good.

Poland also got a card of vet 6 pdrs to strengthen a deck that was pretty good at 1v1 before.

A lot of the changes were mostly internal, but I do still think Axis needs some help for 1v1 play. The trouble is, how do you buff them without adversely affecting team games? I'd start by hitting the two worst offenders in allied decks, 15 scots and 4AD and then see what happens.

2ID is probably my favorite division on the allied side. I just love those recon AT units and then more 2-man AT squads in phase B in anit-tank tab. Those guys comes in handy when trying to hold the line in phase A against a Panzer Lehr or 9.Panzer rush.

 

[Ktonos]

About 76 mm gun:
The 76 mm was capable of knocking out a Panther at normal combat ranges from the flanks or rear, but could not overcome the glacis plate. Due to its 55 degree slope, the Panther's 80 mm (3.1 in) glacis had a line of sight thickness of 140 mm (5.5 in) with actual effectiveness being even greater.

Wrong. I mean, yes, it couldn't penetrate the glacis, and neither the front of the turret, but it could penetrate the lower hull frontally. And not only that, but it also the allied gunner had 2 more options when facing a panther frontally: a) aim to the ground directly in front of the panther and have a good chance the shot would ricochet up and hit the hull from below, or b) if in lower position aim for the lower part of the turret so the shot would richochet vertically down on the hull. Ofcourse these hits were impropable in long range, but quite successful when very close. Thus, it would be ahistorical to have a frontally an impenetrable Panther. When a Sherman has a 2% to penetrate and it does, you can assume it is a shot like this. A lucky one.

Other thing is range of german tanks which is limited to 1200! Even that Tiger I was capable of knocking a M4 out frontally from over 2,000 meters

As far as I know shots beyond 1000 yards had were unrealistic. The shot itself might have the power to do damage at 3 Km, but if you don't have the means to aim beyond 1.5 Km, you won't take the chance. Most of WW2 tank engagements were below the 1km mark.

I could understand those gamey changes to make german tanks weaker if german side would be over powered..

The best German tanks and equipment was better than the best allied tanks. But not as much superior as you think. They had an edge, and nothing more. And it is well represented in the game. It might not be an absolute representation, but I think that what the game fields is much closer to the reality than what you think the reality was.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Wrong. I mean, yes, it couldn't penetrate the glacis, and neither the front of the turret, but it could penetrate the lower hull frontally. And not only that, but it also the allied gunner had 2 more options when facing a panther frontally: a) aim to the ground directly in front of the panther and have a good chance the shot would ricochet up and hit the hull from below, or b) if in lower position aim for the lower part of the turret so the shot would richochet vertically down on the hull. Ofcourse these hits were impropable in long range, but quite successful when very close. Thus, it would be ahistorical to have a frontally an impenetrable Panther. When a Sherman has a 2% to penetrate and it does, you can assume it is a shot like this. A lucky one.

The ricochet shot was very unreliable. The gun mantle shot pretty much became redundant after the gun mantle was redesigned with a reinforced and angled lower plate.

As far as I know shots beyond 1000 yards had were unrealistic. The shot itself might have the power to do damage at 3 Km, but if you don't have the means to aim beyond 1.5 Km, you won't take the chance. Most of WW2 tank engagements were below the 1km mark.

Evidence? (Genuine question...I'd like to see the assessments)

The best German tanks and equipment was better than the best allied tanks. But not as much superior as you think. They had an edge, and nothing more. And it is well represented in the game. It might not be an absolute representation, but I think that what the game fields is much closer to the reality than what you think the reality was.

I'd suggest it's an apple and orange comparison...the western allies were far behind in tank/armoured vehicle design. After Italy went under, it's a toss-up which of the western allies were the tail-end. The germans developed tanks in response to the Soviets, the US largely gave up designing any new tanks in any numbers after the Sherman, and the brits had 'improved' 1940/41 models, largely.

 

[Karlburg]

@Hidden Gunman

While the ricochet shot was unreliable, 2.8% of all hits(which at acc 6 with no vet is about 28% of shots) is within reason for that outcome. A panther D will nearly always beat a Sherman 76 at range, much less an M10 or M18. A Panther A, G, or Bef. Panther will certainly always win.

At the risk of a derail here, it wasn't so much that the US stopped developing tanks after the Sherman, they just ended up having a lot higher standards in adopting a replacement. There were a lot of potential tanks that might've replaced and supplanted it that either weren't enough of an improvement or were too unreliable to be adopted. The M6, for example, was left stateside, despite having a fair amount produced because it simply didn't offer enough of an advantage over the M4A3 and its variants that were eventually uparmored/upgunned.

In Armored Thunderbolt, Stephen Zaloga cites some studies that basically show that in tank combat, it was the attacker in general who took disproportionate armor casualties- that the tank model was less important than whoever shot first. This wasn't necessarily because the battles were decided in one shot, but because there's no hit indicator in real life telling a particular tank crew where they're getting shot from. The defender generally was able to survey the likely tank approaches, which meant that they typically got to shoot first. The Allies took heavy casualties when they attacked with tanks against tanks, and so did the Germans.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of counfounding factors, and there's no real way to isolate the effect of this technical advantage in combat- by the time there were large tank battles in Northwestern Europe, the quality of the German armor divisions' crews had declined, for example.

To get back into the game, though, I will say that axis heavy tanks are generally a bit overpriced in the 1v1 context, at least against the top tier Allied decks. The trouble is, narrow team maps are a different matter, and there are probably more 3v3 games played than 1v1 games, which makes balance a tough dliemma.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Those are fair comments, but the 'first shot' factor is more or less a standard, it still applied in '73 during the Arab-Israeli war. The relevant issue to the game is that ranges are downscaled and kill potential is expanded (including having no real hull/turret down mechanic and associated topographic system), which gives everyone a fighting chance.

I will disagree on the state of western tank/armour development, though...it truly was appalling.

 

[Ktonos]

Regarding the evidence on the engagement range of tank combat; My sources are WW2 forums.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000067.html

https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=177964

http://ww2f.com/threads/average-tank-battle-distances.53674/

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/ind...-most-wwii-infantry-combat-took-place.121983/

Most of them go about the following, and I quote:

• A US study found the average range for WW2 tank to tank combat between Jun-1944 and Dec-1944 was between 750 and 900 yards, with a mean of 840 yards. Engagement at ranges beyond 1300 m were uncommon (presumably because of the liimted effective range of the most common US tank guns). Another study found the average range of a Western ETO tank battle was 785 yards(One yard is about 0.9144m)

And here is a source discussing several WW2 myths, among them the exaggeration of German armor capabilities. I mean they were veery good. But they also were not that goood.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/05/common-myths-about-wwii/

Edit: Among the above is the misconception of the battle of France; that German armors was more and better than the French - this was wrong. What was the German advantage in tank warfare during the invasion of France was neither their superior tanks nor their numbers. Just their doctrine. French spread their more numerous and better tanks to support infantry divisions, when the Germans used them in huge formations to create spearheads.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Good stuff, Ktonos, very much appreciated. Sorting wheat from chaff in this day is almost as hard as it was back in the day when 'popular history' was the only reference point outside of very arcane professional sources.

Ironic isn't it that the germans used concentrated mass to achieve wins in western Europe, then cried poor when the Soviets returned the treatment in the east...even more ironic is that 'the west' failed to learn the historical lesson from either case.

 

[Karlburg]

Good stuff, Ktonos, very much appreciated. Sorting wheat from chaff in this day is almost as hard as it was back in the day when 'popular history' was the only reference point outside of very arcane professional sources.

Ironic isn't it that the germans used concentrated mass to achieve wins in western Europe, then cried poor when the Soviets returned the treatment in the east...even more ironic is that 'the west' failed to learn the historical lesson from either case.

So, the problem that France had wasn't that it had put its second-line tanks in with infantry divisions(France did in fact put their first line vehicles in armored divisions), but that in their hurry to meet the Germans in Belgium, they fell right into the trap set for them and the army was too slow to move to really do anything about it. The tactics of 1940 didn't really work in 1944- in 1940 the Germans were literally able to attack by driving down roads against extremely disorganized French resistance without infantry support. It was less a question of 'mass' and more of surprise. The French never expected operations to go at the pace they actually did.

It's hard to say that the Allies didn't understand the concept of 'mass', they had armored divisions(and the British were so short on infantry that their units became more and more armor heavy anyway), they did have their breakthroughs, but were somewhat limited by the constraints of operating on a supply line bottlenecked by ports. Their armies were more mechanized than any other during the war. The army of the 90 division gamble(The US) had plenty of powerful divisions and all of them had a good AFV strength, to the point where infantry divisions outnumbered many German armored divisions in AFVs.

The notion that somehow the Soviets understood everything that the West did not is a bit silly- the Allied campaigns in Italy and Northwestern Europe had their problems, but then, so did the Soviet campaigns of 1943-1945. It was not a matter of one knowing something that the other didn't- they worked differently based on the different challenges offered by their countries. The US army was never going to work on the same kind of timetable as the Red Army because they weren't willing to take the casualties that it would've entailed.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

It wasn't a case of the west not knowing, it was a case of not accepting the application. Operation Goodwood (for the Brits) had a frontage for an armoured corps less than that used by the mounted corps for the brigade sized assault on Beersheba in WW1. Montgomery is (at times) touted as utilising mass in set piece attacks, as at Alamein, but his frontages weren't much different than WW1...that's fair enough for infantry, but armoured formation frontages were ridiculously small, forces overly concentrated and lacked supporting operations and follow through plans. While I accept the overall point, US commanders were not afraid of expending lives, at times for the most purile of reasons (their own careers)...Mark Clark (Italy) specifically comes to mind, and Gerhardt (29th Division) was an unquestionable example (the Brits also had their butchers, in fairness).

The problem for the western allies was that neither had well developed doctrines, and definitely in the case of the Brits, failed to critically analyse their operations and actual combat experience. Overall though, it is fair to say that trying to co-ordinate two different national forces as a coherent whole would be a nightmare, but that doesn't excuse the core problematic issues of each nation.

People tend to discount the sheer organisational and planning excellence required to organise and carry out operations on the scale that the Soviets were doing. Notwithstanding the scale of Overlord, it was a once-off, and was recognised that would not be able to be repeated for 18 months or so if it failed.

Not having a dig, but what was silly was the Brits trying to insert an unsupported armoured corps through a tiered defence in depth on a very tight frontage (so tight that AT guns on one flank could fire on targets on the opposite flank)...they had several goes at it with various formations.

 

[Wulfburk]

In the case of goodwood, it was unsupported because the whole plan was based on the principle of giving the infantry some rest, as their casualties until then were too high (for the brits, they were lower than the american casualties in normandy) and not enough replenishments. Which is why montgomery gave the go ahead for the use of the 3 armoured divisions as the focus point of a job they werent made out to do. Then it was Dempsey that made the actual plan using them. In the end tank losses were high, but it would have been ten times worse for britain to get the same number of infantry losses at that time as they had of crew losses. (and in the end the germans... on the defensive, lost a third of the tanks britain lost, and certainly had more casualties than the british, since they lost 2500 captured, so...).

 

[Ktonos]

So, the problem that France had wasn't that it had put its second-line tanks in with infantry divisions(France did in fact put their first line vehicles in armored divisions), but that in their hurry to meet the Germans in Belgium, they fell right into the trap set for them and the army was too slow to move to really do anything about it.

Don't get me wrong, doctrine difference was secondary to the Manstein Plan when discussing the Blitz in Belgium during the fall of France. But there was a doctrine difference. Yes, the French had armored divisions, but even these were used in reserve. And they had two tank divisions, when the Germans had seven, despite that they had more tanks than the Germans.
And yes, Germans used mass as anyone who can use mass will. I remember reading the memoirs of a French tank leader who was ordered to support an infantry regiment with his tank platoon, and he end up facing dozens of panzer I and IIs. Despite having massive quality advantage, he lost all his platoon and got to be a PoW.

Before the success of the Manstein Plan, even the majority of the OKW generals had nightmares of the spearhead being surrounded - most of the German high command was veterans of the great war you see, just like their French counterparts. But here we have another doctrine difference between France and Germany; A French divisional commander was bound by the commands he received from his superior when the German one had the option to bypass orders he found to be impractical. Rommel and Guderian pushed their panzer divisions up to the coast when the OKW ordered them to regroup and wait for the infantry to catch up, closing the pocket. If they waited maybe France would have never fallen.

Edit: Anyways, we discuss about tank quality here, so, my opinion is that Germany had a quality disadvantage for the part of the war that she was winning, and an advantage during the one she was losing.