Why Tank Killers not killing tanks?

[jzardos]

I'm struggling with the combat results for battles and now that have been looking at it closely some things are just not making sense. Since the combat engine should be the 'heart' of the game, if it's not healthy the whole game sort of collapses for me.

So can somebody please explain why the units I consider as German 'tank destoyers' are not killing tanks in this combat? They have great range (especially Nashhorn for christ sakes it has a 8.8cm Pak 43/1 on it!) and plenty of targets (~1000 tanks). To me I expected better results or else what is the point of these AFVs?

Hoping somebody can tell me what I'm missing so I don't start to reconsider this expensive purchase. Is it the weather which made killing tanks much harder in this battle?

[Belphegor]

It looks like the attack got called off at 875... right when those killers of yours started firing. If the battle had continued you'd probably have your kills.

They'd likely have shot from further out if it wasn't raining?

[Nico165b165]

The attack was stopped at range 875. Few actual combats took place and the overall losses are low.

Yet you lose 3 AFV's and he loses 42...

8 are destroyed by 54 of your AFV's. 11 other are destroyed by 182 75's and 88's. That's a pretty good ratio for your tanks compared to your static antitank guns.

I don't see a problem here. Something to remember is that not every available element will be engaged 100% in the fight. There was no close combat here, the attacker tried to advance, saw that he took far more losses than you and quickly decided to call it a day. Not every attack is a Goodwood !

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: Nico165

The attack was stopped at range 875. Few actual combats took place and the overall losses are low.

Yet you lose 3 AFV's and he loses 42...

8 are destroyed by 54 of your AFV's. 11 other are destroyed by 182 75's and 88's. That's a pretty good ratio for your tanks compared to your static antitank guns.

I don't see a problem here. Something to remember is that not every available element will be engaged 100% in the fight. There was no close combat here, the attacker tried to advance, saw that he took far more losses than you and quickly decided to call it a day. Not every attack is a Goodwood !

Ok makes sense. Is that range in meters? 875?

thanks!

[Nico165b165]

The manual speaks in miles/yards, so rather 800m in your case.

[Jajusha]

Thats a fantastic result btw.
Check your fixed 88s result, 4 destroyed, 3 damaged, 5 disrupted.
The Canadians gave up before they even saw what was hitting them.

Also, check your 105mm howitzers, 82 HE hits at 8k distance, causing quite the disruption.

[Walloc]

Remember its permanent losses/total write offs. No details is given but assuming its all tanks(which is prolly isnt), then you just nearly killed as many write offs/permanent tank losses as the British lost during Goodwood.
Cant se that its a "bad" result. If any thing its the opposite.

Before ppl start talking about the 400 losses that the britsh toke during Goodwood that u will see in many books. Please find some source that actual lists permanent losses/write off and not just the day to day "losses" during the battle.
Most of the 400 was repaired again within 3 days of the battle.

As a tidbit the total number of write offs of all tank types for british forces in the entire month of july 1944 in Normandy was 231 per: The official waroffice documents. WO 165/136 "Half Yearly Report on the Progress of the Royal Armored Corps" No. 10

[paullus99]

Crews didn't appreciate the stench of burnt flesh that usually went with receiving a "repaired" Sherman....and yes, lots of them did return to the field and you are correct in that all the British formations decimated in Goodwood had all of their losses made up, either with repaired or new armor within a couple of days.....

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Crews didn't appreciate the stench of burnt flesh that usually went with receiving a "repaired" Sherman....and yes, lots of them did return to the field and you are correct in that all the British formations decimated in Goodwood had all of their losses made up, either with repaired or new armor within a couple of days.....

Absolutly not, who would.
Doesnt change the fact that ~88 % of the tank "losses" that the British lost during Goodwood was eventually repaired and reissued. Still leaves 12% beyound repair or unable to wash down per above reasons. For many years it was thot that the recovery of the Arm divs after Goodwood was primarily done with replacment tanks. Its still to this day repeated.
Non the less research into the subject has revealed that in fact most tanks was repaired and they made up the majority of the "replacement" tanks.
Having to re-adjust the previous view.

Just another way that western allied logistics system was superior come this time. It wasnt only in ability to make more there is a difference(this has recieved alot of emphasize), but also in the ability to supply spare parts, towing vehicles and so on.
Making a difference in another way.

The overall write of ratio in normandy for the 2 sides would prolly supprise many in the time before Cobra. Undoubtbly the german tanks was better in many ways and better lead/used many times but one area that "made up for that" was in the fact the deterioating german supply system. Not making the supply part/being able to get to where needed nor having sufficient tow/recovery vehicles.
If that area had recieved more attention the write off rate would undoubtly been better for the germans, but it was an inevitable part of the system. That logitiscs has been seen as the lesser brother in the german army since Frederick the great and for reason. Just has some negative consequences like this.

Kind regards,
Rasmus