Tank Crew - A bit of history and some commentary.

[MarcoRossolini]

After a long hiatus from the world of Il-2 and RoF, the announcement of Tank Crew has me extremely excited indeed. The concept of multicrew tanks has been my dream for sometime and every game I have played has so far come short of it. Steel Armor is single player, Steel Beasts is too friggin' expensive and WWII Online is paid on a per month basis. The promise of Eastern Front adventures in Tank Crew makes me very happy!

 

Prompted by the questions some people had about the vehicles of Kursk, I thought I'd post up some background and info on what people might expect from the history and my comments on what recreating that might entail for the game.

 

A bit of history

 

Operation Zitadelle, being the German component of the battle of Kursk - although many regard the operation's failure and cancellation as the end of the battle, there's a pretty good argument to be made that the subsequent Soviet counter-offensive (Operation Kutuzov), also falls under the heading of the battle of Kursk - was the final major German offensive in the East. Afterwards, the strategic initiative was constantly in the hands of the Soviets - who would begin a more or less constant advance that would end in Berlin in 1945.  

 

Popularly, Kursk is the largest tank battle ever fought. In recent years however this claim has come under attack, notably in discussing the actions of 1941 around Brody and Dubno.

 

Kursk represents a significant swing of the pendulum in terms of the relative technical capabilities of the two sides with the large scale deployment of the Tiger, Panther and Ferdinand. Prior to Kursk the relative strength of armoured forces on a technical level might be regarded as relatively equal. The T-34 and Panzer IV were relatively equal, with the Panzer IV with the long barrelled gun being somewhat superior, this in turn was balanced out by the heavily armoured KV-1. 

With the arrival of the Panthers and Tigers however, this balance swung in favour of the Germans, although things hardly went all their way. The Panther in particular suffered from significant mechanical problems that plagued it all through the course of the battle. Its crews were under trained and had detrained in preparation for the offensive only a day before the offensive was to take place. Such was the rush that the guns hadn't been boresighted (i.e. zeroed to their gun sights, like gun convergences on aircraft). On the march to the front, a fifth of the Panthers (of 200) broke down and two destroyed by engine fires.

Hardly a promising start. I sincerely hope the poor performance and preparation of Panthers in Tank Crew is modelled in some way.

 

Zitadelle itself began on July 5th, proceeded by fifteen minutes by a Soviet spoiling barrage which whilst disturbing appears to have done little damage. Two main German thrusts struck at the base of the Kursk salient, intended to take Kursk and in doing so cut off the Soviet formations holding the salient, creating an encirclement like the ones Germany had performed so successfully in 1941.

 

Given that we appear to be promised a Belgorod - Prokhorovka map, the majority of the Southern thrust, under taken by the II. SS and III. Panzer Corps will be available for us to work with. These two formations consisted of some of the most well-equipped formations in the Wehrmacht - notably the famous 1. SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, the 2. SS Das Reich and the 3. Totenkopf divisions, as well as the 6. 7. and 19. Panzer Divisions, supported by the 503. Heavy Panzer Battalion (equipped with a lot of Tigers!) and other formations. At the edge of the map, the advance of the Grossdeutschland division adds yet more vehicles, including Tigers, to the fray.

Problems in the handling of commanders hindered German progress. Instead of an overall commander for the southern attack, there were two, one for each of the corps involved. Thus whilst II. SS Panzer Corps fought the 5th Guards Tank Army, the III. fought its own "operationally pointless" battle.

There are a few vehicles notable by their absence in the German lineup. The Ferdinand (the SDKFZ 184), appears to only served on the North thrust, as far as I have been able to find.

 

The advance was marked by extremely heavy fighting. The Soviets, knowing well that this was to be the main German offensive for that year (for once they got both the time and the location right, they screwed up both in 41, got the location wrong in 42) had intended to prepare three defensive lines, however only two were prepared by the time Zitadelle began with the third only partially complete. The first line resisted ferociously, with some fortified villages holding out despite being surrounded. The offensive gradually fell behind schedule. Soviet handling of their armour was a mixed bag. For example, one company of lend-lease M3 Lees (reputedly called by their Soviet crews "grave for seven brothers", went on the attack against a kampfgruppe of Das Reich and was destroyed in half an hour. One gets the strong impression from the fighting at this stage of the battle that it was Soviet anti-tank guns and not their armour which did the lion's share of the work at slowing the Germans down. 

 

Matters were made worse for the German advance by poor reconnaissance, which led to units (including the unfortunate formation of Panthers discussed above) being stopped at ravines (Balkas in Russia) to be pounded by Soviet artillery. The entire Grossdeutschland division was halted by a muddy swamp (which they should've been prepared for) stretched directly in the path of their advance. 

Originally, Prokhorovka was not the primary objective for the German advance. However the slow advance of the Germans necessitated a change of plan.

 

Soviet armoured counter-attacks, given the need to halt the German advance, were often made piece-meal, with one formation going on the attack whilst others nearby were still forming up. The sizes of these formations varied, with a unit of twelve Churchills advancing against an SS Panzer division to support its infantry units, whilst other counterattacks were done at the corps level. Often times these formations became separated from their infantry units and then were cut off. I'm honestly not sure what winning in Tank Crew will look like given such conditions!

 

The clash at Prokhorovka is the one everyone's been waiting for. Beginning on the 12th of July, by now the German armoured spearhead had been ground down to about 400 tanks of all types. These were opposed by the 800 tanks of the 5th Guards Tank Army. This clash has been much mythologised by tank nerds and the Soviets alike, with reports of up to 2000 tanks (the numbers just kept growing) clashing in that engagement. The real numbers are closer to a rather less exciting 500. The origin of these numbers comes primarily from the 5th Guards Tank Army's commander, Rotmistrov, who wished to cover up the fact that in the course of the fighting he'd lost the better part of his Tank Army. Eventually the Stavka (i.e. the Soviet High Command) got to the bottom of these numbers and Stalin wanted to have Rotmistrov shot, although he was eventually dissuaded from this. Rotmistrov would later on be relieved of his command for another failure and promoted to a new position to get him away from the front and prevent his image being tarnished. Valeriy Zamulin's excellent book"Demolishing the Myth" provides more details on this then I could hope to discuss. 

 

Poor reconnaissance, inadequate artillery preparation and the fact that 40% of the 5th GTA was made up of T-70s (and therefore useless against Tigers) were responsible for this defeat. Nonetheless, the German plan for Zitadelle had long since fallen so far behind schedule that a breakthrough and encirclement had become impossible. This was compounded by the Allied landings in Sicily which resulted in the cancellation of Zitadelle (there are long tedious arguments about which contributed more to the cancellation - they usually revolve around whether one or the other side believes the Soviets could've won the war on their own). 

 

Despite the Germans cancelling Zitadelle, the Soviets didn't get the memo, with large scale counter-offensives beginning up and down the line as part of operation Kutuzov. This began a long, though not unbroken, train of Soviet offensives that would culminate in the capture of Berlin.

 

The war was probably lost at Moscow (or at Stalingrad if you're feeling old-fashioned), but Kursk irrevocably placed strategic initiative in the hands of the Soviets.

 

 

 

Gameplay aspects.

 

There's a lot we don't know about Tank Crew at this stage. At this point the only really concrete info is the list of tanks and even that is a tentative. Some of those appearing on the list are surprising. On the Soviet side, the M4A2 I have yet to find a mention of on the Southern Front. There were none in the 5th Guards Tank Army and I have yet to see a mention of it anywhere else. The Soviets received M4A2s to be sure, at least later in the war, but I have found no mention of them being present at Kursk.

There are a host of more deserving lend-lease vehicles, including the Churchill IV (the standard heavy tank in the 5th Guards Tank Army), the Matilda II, M3 Stuart and M3 Lee (although the latter three, if not the Churchill itself would be like taking the I-15 up against a 262). Given their opposition in 1943, one can understand why the Soviets were unimpressed by these lend-lease vehicles. Indeed, the only one of these the Soviets liked was the (later) Valentine Mk.IX, whose 57mm gun could give even a Tiger a bad day.

 

Notable by its absence from the list is the T-70. A two man light tank with a rather ineffective 45mm gun, it would be about as much fun to play as any of the lend-lease vehicles discussed above (with the possible exception of the Lee), but it made up about a third of most Soviet armoured formations in the battle. 

 

Playing the Soviet side is going to be... interesting. Their heavy self-propelled guns (the SU-122 and SU-152) with their large calibre guns could give any German tank a very bad day. Otherwise, the Soviets will have to use ravines, woods and whatever else is available to them to get flanking shots for their turreted vehicles. Its not going to be a very fun experience for anyone who wishes to charge head on like they do in the movies. 

 

The big names for the Germans are of course the Panther, Tiger and Ferdinand. From the front, these vehicles will be all but impervious Soviet gunfire. To hope to dent these vehicles the Soviets will have to get suicidally close. Their heavy guns will meanwhile give any Soviet vehicle an extremely bad day, no matter their type. (unless you're Panther, in which case you'd better hope your gun's been boresighted or you ain't hitting anything!) The Panzer IV with its long barrelled gun will be the equal of most Soviet vehicles, its superior crew layout and (apparently - there's always an argument about this one) optics will give it an edge over its closest analogue the T-34. Only the Panzer III, despite being the most numerous tank of all, is at something of a disadvantage, with its 50mm gun having trouble against the KV and even the T-34. Its extra armour will give it an advantage however.

 

Given the apparently heavy imbalance between the two sides, 777 is going to have be clever with making sure both sides have a fun game. The most critical thing to remember from the above history is that Kursk isn't all tanks. Infantry, anti-tank guns and mines had a significant impact upon the performance of the units involved. To not include all these elements would be a significant oversight. More than likely the lack of these elements would have severe implications for the balancing of the game - with German armour effectively ruling the roost with no ability for the Soviets to break up German advances.

 

Terrain will also have a critical impact. The date is important here. As we saw above, whole units got bogged down in mud (that they'd not recced!) from recent rains. Will these marshy areas be part of the game? Rivers and bridging (however that maybe handled) will also be important, with the crossing of the Psel river south of Prokhorovka being the opening of the Prokhorovka engagement itself. Many Soviet armoured units dug in their vehicles during the battle as well, driving them out when their position was compromised. Some way of doing this may also be worthwhile. From where I sit, the Soviets need all the help they can get on this one!

 

Its worth remembering as well that the Soviet mission here is primarily a defensive one, with counterattacks taking place that were aimed at preventing the Germans from advancing and breaking up their attacks. Retaking villages was naturally important, but a Red army that is constantly on the attack is likely to have a bad day given the imbalance of firepower. Mission designers must be extremely clever in how they structure their missions. The current system, where both sides of objects in enemy territory likely wouldn't hold up, with the Germans easily able to complete their objectives whilst the Soviets, spread out trying to attack and defend multiple objectives, would very likely achieve very little. 

 

Forcing the Germans to support AI formations which are on the attack (as the Soviets support their defending units) and giving AT weapons teeth (a 76mm AT shell to the flank give any German vehicle a bad day) would help in this regard. The potential for tank commanders to be sniped by infantry if they unbutton (this is a 777 product so I take it as given that we'll have no cruddy 3rd person view to spoil proper tank warfare).

 

That's all from me, I hope some found this rather too long essay useful and perhaps illuminated what we'll be getting come mid 2018. This is all written by one guy so give me a shout about any factual errors and I'll consult my sources and correct them.

 

Further reading:

 

The Battle of Kursk by David M. Glantz and Jonathon M. House.

 

Demolishing the Myth by Valeriy Zamulin

 

Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1943 - 1945: Red Steamroller by Robert Forczyk

[Chief_Mouser]

Good summary Marco, thanks!  

[Cybermat47]

Thanks for the summary

 

I’m hoping to see the Sturmpanzer IV at some point. Not very effective against other tanks, but it’s 150mm cannon would be great to have against fortifications... and, of course, those rare opportunities when an enemy tank is close enough for you to easily hit

[PL_Andrev]

 

Gameplay aspects.

 

 

 

Well, you forgot about participation air forces for both sides. IL-2 is a plane sim and I'm quite sure that the cooperation with planes will be important point of game.

I really expect open (field) maps for sniping fire by German tanks against hordes of USSR tanks.

Not sure we will able to call artillery / air strike, but avoid attacks from flying tanks IL-2 or Stukas may be important part of this game.

Especially with combined multiplayer mode (I hope).

 

Where do you find the info about tanks-in-game?

[ElPerk]

Yeah, a balanced 1:1 mix of GER vs. RUS vehicles with no AT guns or infantry is probably not a good time to be a Soviet tanker.

BTW we seriously need a Tank Crew subforum.

Edited November 30, 2017 by ElPerk

[xvii-Dietrich]

Nice article.

 

 

So, the complications are...

• Infantry
• Air-cover
• Artillery (incl. AT guns)
• Mechanical failures
• Terrain

One other thing I recall reading was something about dust. However, this conflicts with the bit about rain and mud in the above article. Was there a major change in the weather during the offensive?

 

I also recall reading somewhere that the dust, terrain, vegetation, etc. all made the tank battles occur at closer range, which was to the advantage of Soviet armour, while removing the advantage of the German superior optics. Is there any evidence to support any of that, or am I misinformed?

 

The Pz III seems pretty weak with on 50mm. But didn't the Pz III Ausf. L have a long barrelled gun with higher velocity. Will this make a difference?

 

Finally, the upcoming Tank Crew release mentions a Half-track+Flak for the Germans and Truck+AAA for the Soviets. What role did they play?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The key to making the 5 cm KwK 39 useful is ammunition. If PzGr. 40 APCR is available, the gun will be able to challenge Soviet tanks at shorter ranges.

 

I assume mechanical failure will occur after engine RPM limits have been exceeded for a certain amount of time.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

50mm PzGr 40 would really give advantages against the KV-1, as the T-34 has a highly sloped upper front plate and the APCR rounds perform badly against them, you would need to still hit the flat areas of the turret like with the standard PzGr 39.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

At work. So, not a lot of time for analysis or commentary but;

 

Yes, there needs to be new sub-forums for both tanks and FC.

 

The game does not model our equipment in anything other than factory fresh proper working order. I doubt this changes for tanks. It is highly unlikely the Panther guns will not be bore sighted regardless of the historical accuracy in this particular case. Same for the engines and drivetrains - use them properly and they will not suffer random failure. Abuse them and they will break. It is a game mechanic with a lot of history in this series.

 

As the game and vehicles need to mesh with the rest of the series it is unlikely, but not completely out of the question, that we get infantry unless there is a workaround for the AI drag that would entail. Manned AT guns are likely and other positions/formations will be represented by machine gun nests and similar entrenched items. Being able to move and fire AT guns could be pretty cool. Being able to camouflage them would be huge.

 

Actually digging tanks in is probably pretty unlikely but having a series of pre-dug hull down revetments at key location on the map could get you around that.

 

M4A2 is included as it was generally available even if not on this front directly. It is plausible as was the A3 for BoS. It is a good call as it can be used for Bodenplatte and gives Yanks something familiar to drive around in.

 

I haven't delved into the history but I'd like to dump the Elephant and bring in either a long gun StuG or Jagdpanther. (or just add one of them and an Su-85 for tank destoyers.)

 

That's my quick hitter. I'll be back later with a more detailed rundown of my self-important opinions

Edited November 30, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[xvii-Dietrich]

I haven't delved into the history but I'd like to dump the Elephant and bring in either a long gun StuG or Jagdpanther. (or just add one of them and an Su-85 for tank destoyers.)

 

The StuG III was a very common vehicle overall. But is it in the "tank destroyer role" by this stage of the war? Or is it still being used as an infantry support weapon?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Wiki indicates the long barrel AT focused StuG's entered service in 1942........

 

All caveats apply.

[FrozenLiquidity]

I feel that a good, but dated model for multi-crew tank combat can be found in the Darkest Hour: Europe 44'-45' mod for Red Orchestra.  Now that's a relatively simplistic example, but it still sees regular players and updates 8 years after release.

 

Some takeaways from it that really bring the combat to life:

• Sounds of shells whizzing by or hitting the tank are superb.  It really pulled the player into the moment and had one reflexively ducking when a shell went roaring over their head.  Definitely, worth looking in to.
• The control mechanics for the main guns give more of a "cranking" feel than simple mouse movements.  (WASD keys are used to control rotation and elevation).  Probably not practical here.
• Smooth transitions between various stances.  Scrolling the mouse wheel allows one to transition from peering down the sight, to sitting inside the turret, viewing through cupola viewports, turning out, and even using binoculars.
• Enough terrain variation to make for a balanced matchup even with a disparity vehicle effectiveness.  The usefulness of the terrain in many of the maps provided the opportunity for concealing movement and flanking maneuvers.  Despite the technical advantages that Axis armor offered, a game with even teams on diverse maps never had a predictable result
• Appropriate ranging and sighting mechanisms - being able to determine the range of targets and adjust the sights accordingly.  First-shot accuracy is important for vehicles without sufficient armor to withstand return fire.
• Multi-crew advantages.  Teams of tankers could do things that solo tankers could not, which made them more effective for shoot and scoot tactics, or close engagements.  If I'm not mistaken, RO2 even added a delay when switching positions within vehicles.
• Vehicle damage models.  The possibility of losing or reducing the functionality of various vehicle components always upped the ante a bit and made for unique situations in which dealing with the reduced effectiveness of ones' own combat vehicle was another obstacle to overcome.
• Damage indications and crew animations.  Okay, DH didn't do this one very well, but having a crew bail out of a disabled vehicle or other indicators of vehicle damage or destruction would hopefully find their way into this.  While a crew was likely to dismount an immobilized vehicle or a vehicle with other serious impairments, it would be silly to force players to do the same.  Though when the player chooses to abandon their vehicle (like ejecting from their plane) there should be an obvious sign that this has occurred (crew dismounting).  Or other serious signs of vehicle damage (rounds cooking off, fire and smoke from crew hatches).

Of course, I'd prefer something a bit more detailed, like the Steel Fury or Tiger vs T34 games, but it doesn't take a full-fidelity simulation to make the game fun.  I don't know what I expect from tank crew, but like many others here I've long awaited a realistic take of this era of tank combat with multiplayer.  War Thunder has all but abandoned this niche and I can't think of a single other recent game on the market that even attempts this.  I'm excited to see what this team can do.  

[kestrel79]

I agree always loved RO's tank mechanics. The mouse scroll views were great and very intuitive.

[ElPerk]

Wiki indicates the long barrel AT focused StuG's entered service in 1942........

 

All caveats apply.

Yeah, they became operational in around summer 1942. Production of short-barreled StuGs ended in spring 1942. StuG IIIG served until the end of war, and was the most produced single German AFV.

 

BTW Jagdpanthers were produced from early 1944 onwards, so not suitable for Kursk.

 

The StuG III was a very common vehicle overall. But is it in the "tank destroyer role" by this stage of the war? Or is it still being used as an infantry support weapon?

StuGs were utilized as all-around AFVs from mid-1943 onwards, and even before that. But you are right, the main role of long-barreled StuG IIIs was to knock out enemy tanks. StuGs were mostly attached to infantry divisions.

 

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yeah, they became operational in around summer 1942. Production of short-barreled StuGs ended in spring 1942. StuG IIIG served until the end of war, and was the most produced single German AFV.

 

BTW Jagdpanthers were produced from early 1944 onwards, so not suitable for Kursk.

 

StuGs were utilized as all-around AFVs from mid-1943 onwards, and even before that. But you are right, the main role of long-barreled StuG IIIs was to knock out enemy tanks. StuGs were mostly attached to infantry divisions.

 

 

I thought StuGs were generally considered as artillery battalions.

[ElPerk]

I thought StuGs were generally considered as artillery battalions.

Organization depends and reorganizations were numerous. Stug battalions - or similar units - were usually - but not often - independent units attached to infantry divisions. Then later in the war they were assigned to AT organizations and tank divisions and everything else too. For example, here's a link: http://www.stugiii.com/sturmartillerie/deploymentorganization.html

 

Their role as artillery post-1942 was a mixed bag, and it appears they usually were not put under the command of divisional artillery. 

 

Like everything else in German tank organizations after summer 1943: it's a complete mess! My suggestion is to just repeat "Stugs were mostly attached to infantry units until everything went bonkers" and leave it at that. Further down that road lies only madness. Luckily organization has nothing to do with gameplay

Edited December 1, 2017 by ElPerk

[Royal_Flight]

I've always thought that the short-barrelled StuGs looked much cooler.

Something about the squat body, casement structure and short gun barrel looks much more aggressive.

[wtornado]

And one must forget that there were kilometers and kilometers,layers and layers of anti-tank trenches with mines and killing zones

supported by artillery.

 

The southern push went better with Von Manstein at the helm.

[Mesha44]

The only Panzer forces that were operating Stugs at Kursk were an independent battalion 301, which had 17. Other stugs were present but as stated above, they belonged to the Artillery branch, not the panzer troops.

 It should also be noted that the Panzer III's were starting to convert to the short 75mm gun at this time, which changed their from anti tank to infantry support.

 

Organization in general is very confusing.  Some Panzer divisions had a single panzer battalion of 4 companies, others (7,11, 13, 19) had a Panzer Regiment with two battalions of 3 companies each.

 

PanzerGrenader Div Grossdeutschland and the SS divisions all had a single company of Tiger tanks attached (SS PzGr Div Viking being an exception).

 

Other interesting units were deployed in Heerstruppen independent units below:

 

Pz Regiment 39 and had two battalions of 96 panthers each. 

 

There was also a Sturm panzer Reg 216 which had 45 SturmPz IV's.

 

Hv Pz battalion 505 (31 Tigers) and 503 (45 Tigers) and the 1st company of 502 Hv Pz Bn (14 Tigers).

 

Edit:  I missed Hv Pz Jaeger Bn 656 with 89 ferdinands.  

Edited December 3, 2017 by Mesha44

[hames123]

Most of the missions in a German career will be full unit attacks against heavily mined AT defenses with lots of infantry in trenches all over the place, as hull down T-34s start to blow up your Panthers and Mark IVs, and artillery rains down on both sides.

 

And a fair number of Soviet careers will end on day one, with a glorious last stand in a hull down position.

 

I really think that the devs shouls make more tank single missions or even a campaign as a teaser. The tank gameplay in this game is not bad, but instead of the one man army tank senario we get, I wish they gave us more unit vs unit senarios, like having 30 T-34s charge against a line of AT guns.

Edited December 10, 2017 by hames123

[migmadmarine]

I hope the game will support beutepanzer, the Germans used tons of captured tanks and ground vehicles, as well as the soviets making some limited use as well (some panzer IIIs, but not the model we've got, some panzer IVs)