45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns Series >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue


Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/27/2012 3:30:53 PM)

The 45mm m1937 and the 50mm PAK 38 have almost the same values in the game, but they are 2 completely different weapons, the first being an Inf AT gun.
The difference between an Inf AT gun and a Motor towed is that the first one is a fairly simple weapon,delivered to AT Coy in every Inf regiment, served usually by a crew of 2, and that could be manhandled in tactical movement to keep pace with infantry, while the other was served by a much larger crew (7 to 9 usually), had to be moved into position by truck, and was usually delivered only to Divisional AT battalions or to Regimental HQs as AT platoons.
The performance of the PAK 38 was much better, and in 1942 the Soviets, recognizing the shortcomings of the m1937 introduced a new 45mm AT gun m42, with a longer barrel and superior performance.
The statistics of the PAK 38 should be considerably and not marginally better than those of the 45mm m1937.

WilliePete -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/27/2012 8:00:04 PM)

I agree 100%. Since you brought up the subject of AT guns, the same can be said about the Soviet 76mm AT vs the Pak 40 75mm AT. I was under the impression that the Pak 40 was the superior weapon, but the stats for the 76mm are one point better in hard attack/hard defense...

amatteucci -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/27/2012 8:26:59 PM)

Yes, and the same stats are used for the PzKpfw IV with the long 7,5cm and the T-34's 76mm.
German long barrelled 75mm guns should be superior (in antiarmour performance) compared to their 76mm soviet counterparts (whether tank or divisional field guns).

gollum -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/28/2012 8:11:37 AM)

In reality in the first two years of the war (41 and 42)the RKKA had a huge problems with armor-piercing ammunition for all of their 45 and 76 mm guns - both towed and tank weapons. Especially that applies to 45 mm infantry gun (main artillery piece at battalion and regiment level in that period). Because of that in 1941 (and I believe that this applies also to most of 1942) 45 mm infantry gun should have a stats closer to the 3,7 cm PaK36 (in real firing tests (in 1941) standard armor-piercing ammo of 45 mm failed to pierce the 50 mm cemented armored plate at 30 grad at 100 m what mean that it is almost of no use against most of German tanks in 1942 (almost all of Pz III and Pz IV were already produced with or up-armored to 50 mm in frontal projections). In real test against captured German tanks which took place in spring of 1942 again was unable to penetrate 50 mm cemented plate at 100 m and was able to penetrate only 30 mm plate of the boards of tanks turrets). The main problem is identified as very bad quality of material for armor-piercing core of the round (and there are some problems with design as well).
All of 76 mm divisional guns at service in RKKA in 1941-1942 were field guns and not specialized anti-tank weapons. They all had very poor (in performance) anti-tank ammunitions and should be inferior to 7,5 cm PaK 40 in that aspect, but surpass it general performance (firing from closed positions, anti-infantry role etc.) in that period (at least to beginning of 1943).
This applies to tank-guns as well.

I haven't seen a game in which that facts are simulated (in most cases game designers take in account only internal and external ballistics of the guns but not performance of the ammunitions that were used in reality). I think that Vic is probably leaved things as they are in the game because of game play considerations (weapons of similar roles must be very close in game-play performance - as in Advanced Tactics).

PS Excuse me for my very bad English.

amatteucci -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/28/2012 9:46:42 AM)

Poor quality of early-war Soviet armour piercing ammo is simulated in some games (notably CMBB), anyway let's also consider that DG:CB is not a tactical games and the anti-armour rating should not only reflect the penetration capabilities of the guns involved but also other things like range, accuracy, optics, ergonomics, crew composition, rate of fire, doctrine etc.

gollum -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/28/2012 10:33:52 AM)

[quote=amatteucci]anyway let's also consider that DG:CB is not a tactical games and the anti-armour rating should not only reflect the penetration capabilities of the guns involved but also other things like range, accuracy, optics, ergonomics, crew composition, rate of fire, doctrine etc. [/quote]
Agree with that - these are more important factors and actual technical performance of weapons should be only minor part of the considerations behind stats in game. But the thing is that - in spite of soviet doctrine and regulations statements, that give much importance of anti-tank defense (and presence in 1941 of very strong anti-tank artillery brigades (at least on paper)), - in reality soviet anti-tank deference were very weak in therms of organization and understanding (transfer from doctrine and regulations to reality) in comparison to Germans.
I don`t think that in such thing like range, accuracy, rate of fire, optics and especially ergonomics (!) soviet anti-tank weapons and detachments were superior to Germans - at least in that period - 1941-1942 (from 1943 gradually things were going better and better for RKKA in those areas).
To some extent the same is true for comparison of tanks like technical details and like detachments, doctrine, organization etc. But that is another topic.

IMHO, the main reason for Vic in this matter is game play - if soviet ant-tank and tanks are too weak and vulnerable it will be too unbalanced for player on soviet side and too easy (unlike in reality) for German side.
And there is another possible argument: since the game is operational and not tactical in defense situations there is no way to simulate various tactics that were employed to overcome weakness of anti-tank guns other that command cards and "hard" in weapons stats. More important is successful simulation of operational aspects and relations with high command (unrealistic goals and stuff like that) than the stats of individual trooptipes and it seams that the game is very good at that.

MTTODD -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/28/2012 8:57:39 PM)

So you are saying that the penetration values are wrong but thats Ok because it helps the game play.

But does not that devalue the unit values.

When I play the game I want to know that the unit types I have are accurately simulated otherwise you might as well not call it a pak 38 if it does not
simulate it correctly.

Many thanks.

amatteucci -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/28/2012 9:10:54 PM)

Gollum, I said that other factors are to be taken into consideration but I am aware that the German, in the timeframe we're considering, had the edge in almost all the fields I mentioned. I agree that, for realism sake, some factor should be changed.

Moreover, I don't think that Soviet units are in desperate need to be unrealistically empowered in this game. Playing as the Soviet (OK, it was agaist the AI but...) I managed to clear all the game map (save for a couple hexes in Odessa) from Axis units by the end of August 1942, with a casualty ration of more than 2:1 in my favour!

gollum -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/29/2012 8:49:52 AM)


So you are saying that the penetration values are wrong but thats Ok because it helps the game play.

MTTODD, it may sound this way - I apologizes because of my not very good English I often have problems to express what I think. I write that maybe the gameplay reasons was what was behind this design decision (ad other decisions of these type). And there is another reasoning too: the game was beta-tested and balanced with these stats. There is no problem to change them in editor, but these changes may change overall balance.
Anyway - I myself prefer the game to be realistic/historically accurate (but not necessarily in details but in "feel") and there are several things in this excellent game, that are not historically accurate on technical or tactical level (to mention a few that I already noticed: the way rocket artillery is simulated; absence of soviet tank brigades with (mainly) British tanks; the infantry - which is almost the same for the two sides, - this will be almost fine if infantry heavy weaponry was simulated as separate trooptypes (mostly squad and company level mortars)q but this is not the case and that is a factor that really mean very different effectiveness of German and soviet infantry in combat; the howitzers, which appear to be too strong in regular direct combat, etc.), if I my say so. But the thing is that achieving that kind of simulation of tactical "stuff" is not very easy on that (operational) scale, because of the many factors involved (Amatteucci mentioned more of them in previous post): not only actual technical details of the weapon system in question but tactical methods and procedures for overcoming deficiencies of the weapon in real combat situations. All that must be simulated in the stats of the trooptype.
I will give some example: if I decide to create some scenario of the summer of 1941 of some of the counter-attacks of the mechanized corps I will have to modify the stats for soviet tanks and guns of that units or - to modify stats for anti-tank artillery of German infantry divisions so that the player that plays German side be able as in reality to stop attacks from soviet tanks with his infantry (as happens in many cases).
If I only account for data on paper for soviet armor and PaK_guns, I will have to make stats for 3,7 cm very weak and defense of modern soviet tanks (mostly T-34 and KV-1) too strong. But in reality anti-tank defenses of German infantry divisions for most of the cases were strong enough - not because the guns themselves (mainly 3,7 and 5 cm PaKs) were that good, but because of tactical expertise of the anti-tank detachments (and to some extent - very weak tactical skills on soviet side (not in all but in many cases)). But if the game is operational you have to embed those kind of things directly in trooptype stats or to simulate in some other way (in fact - the tactical officers card are not a bad way to do this kind of things).
Anyway - I agree that it will be probably good to change the stats of soviet trooptypes a little (and maybe of all of the heavy artillery - howitzers and corps guns, because now they all seems too powerful in direct combat - when they are defending). Good thing is that we have the editor to make that kind of changes.

Amatteucci, maybe you are right, because I brought game recently (actually - yesterday) and have a very limited experience with it (I have played ATG, but not the first DC), but is already visible to me that the game represent realistically the operational combat in that period of time (at least to my understanding of it ;) ). I have played several turns and almost never throw more than a glance of the details of trooptypes compositions of regiments - mostly because the "big picture" (where these regiments are and what tkey are doing) seams more important.
My main concern in changing more "dramatically" (in search of historical accurateness of details) of some of the stats is to not break balance in game. After all the game did have a beta-test with that stats for trooptypes.

Keunert -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/29/2012 12:24:34 PM)

you have also to take into consideration the command and control problems of the soviets, plus other organizational penalties and the far lower commander ratings. so even if the soviet PAK on paper looks like it will match the german one, in the game you will have different effects that will set the performance of the german and the soviet Panzerabwehr Kanone apart. same goes for infantry. there are mechanism in the game besides those stats that will make the life of a soviet player a lot harder than that of the german one.

Keunert -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/29/2012 12:32:08 PM)

playing the soviets i learn this the hard way. i attacked three german infantry regiments that crossed a river. my attack was supported by an artillery barrage, the defender has a river without bridge between him and his HQ, most likely with the result of lower supply, my units had a three sided attack supported by tanks and all of them within full HQ range... in WtP this attack would have dealed the germans high losses. this time they lost about 200men, my troops lost like 4 or 5 times as much, lost several tanks and the german regiments stood firm.

this is because lower morale, organizational penalties and lower HQ combat modifiers do a lot to make any soviet attack, by land and air, a very costly and risky business. those problems will be solved by time, the crucial question is if your army will still be in any fighting shape by that time.

MTTODD -> RE: 45mm AT vs 50mm PAK 38 (7/29/2012 8:36:22 PM)

Gollum, no need to apologise for your English I,am sure its better than my Bulgarian.

Thanks for your detailed reply, yes I will use the editor if needed.

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI