Problems with the The German Ferdinand . . .

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

Post Reply
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

Problems with the The German Ferdinand . . .

Post by vahauser »

I've been incorrectly referring to the German Elefant and the Ferdinand.

The Ferdinand was the heavy AFV used by the Germans at Kursk. It had only an 88mm/L71 gun as armament and that gun only carried 15 rounds of HE ammo. It had no machinegun. The Ferdinand crews complained bitterly that they could not defend themselves against Soviet infantry close assaults.

A few months later, the Ferdinand was given a hull-mounted machinegun for close defense and was renamed the Elefant. The Elefant was not at Kursk, the Ferdinand was at Kursk.

Even with a hull-mounted machinegun, the Elefant was not very good at defending itself against enemy infantry close assaults. Historically, the Germans were forced to escort their Elefants (and especially their Ferdinands) with friendly infantry in order to keep enemy infantry from close assaulting. And herein lies the problem.

TOAW III assigns the Elefant a DR=6 and Armor=20. I'm not sure how the DR for an AFV is determined, but it seems to be related the "class" of the AFV. TOAW III classes most all WW2 AFVs as DR=5, which I interpret to be "standard AFV". TOAW III classes a few WW2 AFVs as DR=6, which I interpret to be "heavy AFV".

For instance, the Pz IIF and the Pz IVD and the Sherman M4/105 are all DR=5, "standard tanks". The JSU-152 and the Ferdinand/Elefant are DR=6, "heavy tanks". I've decided not to mess with any changes to the standard TOAW III DR ratings in my WW2 database. I'd like to classify the Pz II series as DR=4, "light tanks", but there are probably hidden reasons within the game engine that could make this a bad idea. So, the standard TOAW III DR ratings will remain unchanged in my WW2 database.

Anyway, the standard TOAW III Ferdinand/Elefant has a DR=6 and Armor=20 (my Armor ratings are still being developed, pending the results of this thread). The problem is that historically, the Ferdinand/Elefant was very vulnerable to infantry close assault. EDIT: According to standard TOAW III, most infantry in 1943 have no hope of close assaulting the Ferdinand/Elefant because infantry AT values in 1943 are not good on average.

The problem is: How can the vulnerability of the Ferdinand/Elefant to infantry close assault in 1943 be historically portrayed?
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Problems with the The German Ferdinand . . .

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: vahauser



...The problem is: How can the vulnerability of the Ferdinand/Elefant to infantry close assault in 1943 be historically portrayed?

It probably can't be portrayed very well. Incidentally, I was reading a Glantz book on the summer of 1943. The pasting the Ferdinands took at Kursk notwithstanding, a considerable number of them evidently survived and were in action a few weeks later. It's at least possible the Germans started to take their vulnerability into account -- might have ensured they were accompanied by other tanks or that they were otherwise given some protection from infantry close assault. After all, an 88 L/71 on a massively armored chassis is an 88 L/71 on a massively armored chassis -- nothing to sneeze at.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
vahauser
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Problems with the The German Ferdinand . . .

Post by vahauser »

Colin,
 
Yeah.  I was afraid of that.  Oh well.
 
I think I've figured out a way to approximate the way standard TOAW III assigns Armor ratings to its AFVs (at least for WW2).  Bob Cross in his manual on editing the BioEd mentioned that he didn't fully understand how the Armor ratings were determined.
 
I've examined the TOAW III Armor ratings in the BioEd and I've compared them to the armor data provided with Steel Panthers.  The "quick and dirty" is that if you take the maximum armor of the AFV in question in millimeters and then divide that by 10, you get a number close to what TOAW III is assigning to its Armor rating.
 
For instance, the Ferdinand has a maximum armor of around 200mm, which divided by 10 yields an Armor rating of 20, which is exactly what standard TOAW III assigns to the Ferdinand.  This "quick and dirty" method doesn't always match what TOAW III is assigning as Armor ratings, but it is usually close.
 
Anyway, I'm not happy with the "quick and dirty" approach.  My spreadsheet is currently giving Armor ratings similar to but not the same as standard TOAW III, but since I know exactly the input values for my spreadsheet (I'm getting them from Steel Panthers), and since I believe the Steel Panthers data to be extremely reliable (it has been checked and double-checked and triple-checked over the course of many years), then I'm very comfortable with the Armor ratings it is producing. 
 
That said, however, until I revisit my Antitank Ratings there are still some calibration issues to be resolved.  My Antitank and Armor ratings have to be as close to 100% compatible as possible and right now they aren't.  This will probably take several "back-and-forth" iterations between Antitank and Armor until they match up as accurately as I can make them. 
 
In the meantime, I'll just have to live with anomalous ratings like the Ferdinand/Elefant and do my best to make the other more "traditional" ratings match up.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”