The M4(late) doesn't have a cupola, right? Which means that even with the advantage of a cupola, both the Panther and the Panzer IV still spot considerably worse?
I'm not sure how much the cupola adds to forward spotting, which is what I understand Drifter tested.
Thank you for all the data Drifter.
What would you expect in these cases?Would love to see this test run at 1000 or 1500m...
At 1000 m - difficult to say if there would be any change
At 1500 m - excessive range in CM terms - probably inconclusive with lots of early disengagements
M4 (late) does not have a cupola and M4A3(75)W (early) does not have a cupola, either. In CMBN, the following Shermans have cupola:
M4A1(76)W (early), M4A3(76)W (early), M4A3(75)W (mid), M4(105) (mid), M4A3(105) (mid).
British Shermans do not have a cupola.
I haven't completed any Sherman tests with a cupola. With a cupola, I expect better spotting especially when buttoned up.
At 800-1000 m - The Panzer IV will win, because it will land the first shot much faster due to its better gun.
At 1200-1500 m - The Sherman will win, because the Panzer IV can't really penetrate at that distance, but the Sherman still can.
Those are my predictions, and I think the reason Stafford is asking is because we were discussing it in another thread
From a bit of testing a platoon of m4late and a platoon of pz4h late against each otherAt 800-1000 m - The Panzer IV will win, because it will land the first shot much faster due to its better gun.
At 1200-1500 m - The Sherman will win, because the Panzer IV can't really penetrate at that distance, but the Sherman still can.
Those are my predictions, and I think the reason Stafford is asking is because we were discussing it in another thread
There seems to be no difference in accuracy between them both sides landed the fist equally often. The outcome depends mostly on area each tank can penetratrate and spotting ability.
At 800m she shermans win comfortably. Both sides can pen each other almost anywhere. shermans seem to take less after pen damage though and with their better spotting consistently win the fight.
At 1000m The pz4 win. The sherman wont get through the pz4 hull but easily through the turret while the pz4 can get through the turret and some parts of the hull.
At 1500m Equal fight with slight advantedge to the sherman. Nothing changes for the sherman but the pz4 can only get through the turret and some area of the lower front.
So combined with Drifter Mans test id say Sherman is better except for the band between 900m and 1300m-1400m. And that doesnt adress the fact that buffing the shermans crew skill until it costs similar to the pz4 it will easily win at all ranges.
So for points cost if anything the sherman should be 10-15 points more expensive rather than the pz4 being 50 points more expensive.
Ill look at testing stugs later.
Surprising to hear that, since the PzIV has a "faster" gun and should need fewer ranging shots to get on target. And this is also generally what I see when playing the game... but I haven't tested it out myself. Thanks for sharing.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Stug III crew were artillerymen, and I don't rule out that the AFV may have better optics. There should be an explanation for why the vehicle is more expensive. For spotting, I let nearby infantry fire at a target I want the AFV to spot. It seems to work better than manually plot a target with the AFV.
This is possible - I too suspect there is some hidden reason for the absurd price level.
I should test gun accuracy for the 75mm Sherman and for the StuG, too.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
How do you do your testing? During a battle, I make sure that the infantry will pass on their intel to the armored units nearby. It is very subtle yesterday with a half-track.
In the last 10 seconds, its MG swung and took out an Enemy-MG. Then you have the experience levels etc. Stug Crews were something like 'Elite'.
There are lots of possible scenarios that can come up, so I try to keep everything as simple as possible to be able to compare different vehicles under identical conditions.
Spotting test setup:
- One spotting vehicle in a central position on the map - either buttoned up or opened up, depending on what I want to test. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers
- 49 target vehicles at 12 through 6 o'clock positions, 200 to 1400 meters in 200 m intervals. Pz IVH (late), buttoned up. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers
- Everyone has tight cover arcs to prevent shooting
- Register the first spotting event in the game (occurs in the first 7 seconds) from the perspective of the spotter. Record which target vehicles were spotted as "solid" contacts (tentative contacts do not count)
- Repeat 10,000 times
Gun accuracy test setup:
- 10 target vehicles - Pz IVH (late), dismounted so that they cannot do silly things like run away or shoot back
- 10 firing vehicles. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers. Placed at the start of the test to the desired distance (400-1400 m; at 200 m the hit probability is usually ~100%)
- Tight cover arcs until everyone in the line sees their target - then change cover arcs for everyone to open fire at the target
- Register the number of hits with the first shot
- Register the number of hits with the second shot; if the first shot has obliterated the target and the second shot is not taken, count it automatically as a hit, too
- Repeat until 10,000 second shots are taken
Awesome stuff! My interest in the Pz IV vs Sherman comparison is to do with the guns vs armour at range, the Pz IV gun is higher velocity which gives it greater punching power and a flatter trajectory meaning it should land a hit first, particularly as the range increases.
The Shermans armour is sloped, which is fairly irrelevant at ranges under 500m due to the 75 L/48s high penetration, however over a longer range (1000-1500m+) the slope may come into effect as the round loses trajectory due to drag.
What I'd like to test is where this point comes into effect.
Yes this isn't at all a realistic scenario, and it will be at ranges that most CM games are not played, but my understanding has been that the 75 L/48 is superior to the Shermans 75 at all ranges with regard to armour penetration, @Bulletpoint has a different opinion, so is there a point where the 75 L/48 can no longer penetrate, but the Sherman 75 still can due to the respective tanks armour characteristics?
The Shermans armour is sloped, which is fairly irrelevant at ranges under 500m due to the 75 L/48s high penetration, however over a longer range (1000-1500m+) the slope may come into effect as the round loses trajectory due to drag.
What I'd like to test is where this point comes into effect.
Yes this isn't at all a realistic scenario, and it will be at ranges that most CM games are not played, but my understanding has been that the 75 L/48 is superior to the Shermans 75 at all ranges with regard to armour penetration, @Bulletpoint has a different opinion, so is there a point where the 75 L/48 can no longer penetrate, but the Sherman 75 still can due to the respective tanks armour characteristics?
I don't plan to test above 1400 m (as you said it is not very realistic in CM) but I do plan to test protection and survivability at some point.
Recently I only briefly (manually) tested some long range gunnery vs Firefly (guess why?) and the curved trajectory does play a role, it is possible to get a top hull penetrations at around 1500 m. The turret face also remains vulnerable, although the penetrations tend to be partial at best.
What I think is more important is the relative elevation of the vehicles, which alters the obliquity angle on impact. E.g. shooting at a Sherman from above could give a greater chance of penetrating the sloped upper hull plate. Similarly, placing your tank at a slight angle instead of directly facing the enemy seems to increase chances of survival in marginal cases - but usually you don't have much control over this, the AI crew rotate their tank as they see fit.
Recently I only briefly (manually) tested some long range gunnery vs Firefly (guess why?) and the curved trajectory does play a role, it is possible to get a top hull penetrations at around 1500 m. The turret face also remains vulnerable, although the penetrations tend to be partial at best.
What I think is more important is the relative elevation of the vehicles, which alters the obliquity angle on impact. E.g. shooting at a Sherman from above could give a greater chance of penetrating the sloped upper hull plate. Similarly, placing your tank at a slight angle instead of directly facing the enemy seems to increase chances of survival in marginal cases - but usually you don't have much control over this, the AI crew rotate their tank as they see fit.
Sherman vs stug
Notably and surprisingly for me the stugs are far better shots especially compared to the pz4 test.
They win at 600m, 800m, 1000m, and 1500m and won every single round.
At 600m the shermans struggle to actually kill them and usually end up disabling 2-3 by hitting the gun mount and hitting loads of partial pens.
At 800m its largely the same with more stugs actually dying from partial pens of the driver area cooking off ammo. still usually 2-3 stugs down.
At 1000m stugs absolutely wipe the floor with shermans. Shermans usually took 2-3 casualties the first min with the others following the second one. no stug was ever destroyed but rarely one got a firepower kill. Lots of instances of no damage to the stugs whatsoever.
at 1500m Stugs still win but it takes a long time. they struggle to spot the shermans and the shermans struggle to do damage.
Notably and surprisingly for me the stugs are far better shots especially compared to the pz4 test.
They win at 600m, 800m, 1000m, and 1500m and won every single round.
At 600m the shermans struggle to actually kill them and usually end up disabling 2-3 by hitting the gun mount and hitting loads of partial pens.
At 800m its largely the same with more stugs actually dying from partial pens of the driver area cooking off ammo. still usually 2-3 stugs down.
At 1000m stugs absolutely wipe the floor with shermans. Shermans usually took 2-3 casualties the first min with the others following the second one. no stug was ever destroyed but rarely one got a firepower kill. Lots of instances of no damage to the stugs whatsoever.
at 1500m Stugs still win but it takes a long time. they struggle to spot the shermans and the shermans struggle to do damage.
One grain of salt to the stug test:
When testing vs shermans with both sides hulldown the stugs lose badly. They simply cant spot the shermans.
Also Hulldown is mostly broken.
750m to the sherman the crew couldnt spot it from inside the tank for over 10min. As soon as i dismounted and crawled forward they spotted it. The sherman has equally ben unable to spot the pz4.
When testing vs shermans with both sides hulldown the stugs lose badly. They simply cant spot the shermans.
Also Hulldown is mostly broken.
750m to the sherman the crew couldnt spot it from inside the tank for over 10min. As soon as i dismounted and crawled forward they spotted it. The sherman has equally ben unable to spot the pz4.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
That is my theory they are skilled artillery crew, possibly also more skilled in AT gunnery.
They might also have better rangefinding optics.
The Jagdtiger for example has a stereoscopic rangefinder along the entire front compartment width. The StuGs might have scissor rangefinders (as used by artillery) that the Panzers do not have.
Dunno. Not documented in CMx2 unit data.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Kudos to you. I just kept a log up over the years. When and how a killing shot was achieved. Last time in 'FR To Berlin'. 1Stug was spotted but unfortunately, there was also an 88mm FLAK. I moved up to the STUG with 3 Shermans and 3 T34/85. Lost 3 Shermans but took out the STUG and the 88 mm FLAK. The best tactic is to have respect for the enemy. Engage well below 1km to penetrate for the US their 76mm and the Soviets the 85mm. Once again thanks for your dedication in putting this together.There are lots of possible scenarios that can come up, so I try to keep everything as simple as possible to be able to compare different vehicles under identical conditions.
Spotting test setup:
The result is a diagram with % probabilities of spotting a Pz IVH in the first spotting event of the game, like this:
- One spotting vehicle in a central position on the map - either buttoned up or opened up, depending on what I want to test. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers
- 49 target vehicles at 12 through 6 o'clock positions, 200 to 1400 meters in 200 m intervals. Pz IVH (late), buttoned up. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers
- Everyone has tight cover arcs to prevent shooting
- Register the first spotting event in the game (occurs in the first 7 seconds) from the perspective of the spotter. Record which target vehicles were spotted as "solid" contacts (tentative contacts do not count)
- Repeat 10,000 times
Gun accuracy test setup:
The result are % probabilities of hitting a Pz IVH with the first shot and the second shot at different ranges, like this:
- 10 target vehicles - Pz IVH (late), dismounted so that they cannot do silly things like run away or shoot back
- 10 firing vehicles. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers. Placed at the start of the test to the desired distance (400-1400 m; at 200 m the hit probability is usually ~100%)
- Tight cover arcs until everyone in the line sees their target - then change cover arcs for everyone to open fire at the target
- Register the number of hits with the first shot
- Register the number of hits with the second shot; if the first shot has obliterated the target and the second shot is not taken, count it automatically as a hit, too
- Repeat until 10,000 second shots are taken
No problem - I am curious about the same questions as everyone else and am happy to share my results. It does not take much effort from me, but they take a long time to accumulate. I'll need months to get enough data to make it worthwhile. Unless my poor old laptop gives up ghost from running CM around the clock in the meantime.
Paying attention to what is happening in your battles is equally useful - because you see all the different situations that can come up. Systematic testing like what I do is great, but it is just a carefully engineered scenario repeated 10,000 times.