Jump to content
NETSCAPE

TANK CREW – CLASH AT PROKHOROVKA

TANK CREW – CLASH AT PROKHOROVKA  

180 members have voted

  1. 1. What AFV are you looking forward to the most?

    • T-34-76 STZ
    • KV-1s
    • M4A2
    • SU-122
    • SU-152
    • PzKpfw III Ausf.L
    • PzKpfw IV Ausf.G
    • PzKpfw V Ausf.D (Panther)
    • PzKpfw VI Ausf.H1 (Tiger)
    • Sd. Kfz. 184 (Elephant)
    • Devs, please add a StuG III G!
    • I prefer the comfort of my hanger, not the front line.


Recommended Posts

Based on the tentative list, what are you guys excited to hop in?

Edited by NETSCAPE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be an option for "I have no idea because I know next to nothing about armor".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one with the most overpowered flight model.... ;)

 

(thanks be to zeebras)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one of em!

 

Well have fun sipping schnapps in your comfy hanger while we're out here winning battles.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added two more options:

 

  • Devs, please add a StuG variant.

 

  • I prefer the comfort of my hanger, not the front line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tigger, even though if its anything like BoS I'll rarely ever play German because the teams will be hella-stacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tigger, even though if its anything like BoS I'll rarely ever play German because the teams will be hella-stacked

Don't be a wuss

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr: I voted "KV-1S" for being the only tank on Soviet site featuring a vision cupola

A decade ago I was dreaming about combined arms in IL2. Maybe it becomes reality now, but...

...I'm not as convinced about the whole idea anymore.
Don't get me wrong, it still attracts me very much and there's definitely a gap in the marked regarding (multiplayer) tank simulations, but also there are large obstacles to overcome first.

Quite fundamentally: How is it going to work? The maps have to be detailed to a much greater extend, resulting in smaller maps. But then how aircraft are going to work realistically?
My hope was something like a more detailed area within the bigger "aircraft map" - apparently it isn't going to work this way, I was told (nobody official).
Then what? Are we losing the combined arms part, having to concentrate on armor OR aircraft?

I have to admit I'm personally(!) also not 100% happy about Kursk/Prokhorovka for multiple reasons.
Two of the tanks already being modeled and for sure the name of the battle itself sealed the deal I guess.
Yet this is one of my concerns - it can be quite a toxic topic, especially the Battle of Prokhorovka itself. 
The Soviets lost large amounts of tanks on this very event and much of the overall strategic victory at Kursk was won due to the widespread staggered defensive lines setup by the Soviets prior to the battle.
As already discussed by some Users in different threads, infantry plays a vital role in tank combat, yet we are not going to see it modeled I'm afraid. Some field guns and anti-tank guns probably, but those won't substitute infantry.

Now focusing on the vehicles themselves, I know of the lineup posted in the official announcement being a "Tentative List" [sic].

We have to start somewhere and instead of concentrating on obvious features like the 8,8-cm-KwK 36 L/56 or 7,5-cm-KwK 42 L/70 I want to concentrate on less obvious, but as important details. One of them concerns visibility.
I keep looking from a simulator point of view, hence no external views except for the tank commander lurking out, endangering himself (to lesser extend due to most likely missing Infantry).
Keep in mind the first hit is more than likely to determine the victor in tank vs. tank combat and a shell fired by a ZiS-5 can penetrate your Tiger's side and rear armor easily from quite some distance.
So keep watching!
The sole(!) Soviet tank in the entire lineup featuring a vision cupola is in fact the KV-1S.
All other vehicles we get rely on their periscopic sight as well as vision ports/slits.
Soviet AFVs mostly relied on two sights. One telescopic, one periscopic sight.
The periscopes weren't very accurate sights, nor particularly well suited for observation.
T-34 STZ are unique in also providing the loader up to 1942 (this part was rationalized) with a telescope for observation only.
Still there is nothing like a vision cupola for tank commanders, wherefore T-34/76 produced from autumn 1943 featured one with crude vision slits. But this is beyond our timeframe.
In case you didn't know, STZ is an abbreviation of "Stalingradski traktorni zavod", which was, besides being bombed, famously a place of fighting during the Battle of Stalingrad.
Consequently the factory had to be basically rebuilt afterwards, resulting in no further production of T-34 there, slowly restarting with engine and tractor production from 1944.  
In turn this means there is a gap of aprox. 9 months between the last T-34 STZ being build and the beginning of the Battle of Kursk.
The Red Army was very effective at salvaging and rebuilding tanks whenever possible, resulting in a tremendous amount of combinations of various models and factory-specific features, so maybe a few STZ hulls, etc. still drove around, but the vast majority wasn't of STZ-origin at all.  
With all due respect and sympathy, there should be at least one of the 1942 model T-34 with hexagonal turret we apparently won't get in favor of the already existing T-34 manufactured by STZ.
Besides the also missing T-70, the by far most important Soviet armored fighting vehicle of not just this operation, the mighty T-34, isn't going to be resembled properly?!
Concerning the SU-122: This one just doesn't fit the game (I guess) 1CGS is thinking of.
My next point is on topic of the M4A2.
I asked Jason about this during the TS Q&A already, he replied it would be included to attract more Western people. Maybe that's going to happen, but maybe it isn't.
It has to be something like a "Premium Vehicle", as there simply weren't any "Emchas" involved in the Battle of Kursk.   
Another lend-lease tank though was: Infantry Tank Mk. IV (A22) Churchill
It fulfills the role of being lend-lease also, is more unique in comparison to the other tanks and actually was fielded. What not to like?

post-477-0-40795400-1518915682_thumb.jpg
public domain via Wikipedia

 

A recent publication on topic of Kursk is "Kursk 1943: Die größte Schlacht des Zweiten Weltkriegs" by Dr. Roman Töppel.
The book representing the most recent (Western) point of view on this battle and also the myths surrounding it.
It soon will be published in English language as well. I'm not associated with anyone of course.

 

 

 

 

It's hypothetic and not subject of this thread, but...
...my personal choice would have been: The Battle of the Bulge!

Not due to any kind of personal preference, no agenda, but me believing it would be a much more interesting and fun game, while also covering a publicly well known battle.
Moreover the landscape has to be researched anyway for BoBP, making work more easy and economical.

For the sake of discussion I add a partial list of common and/or well known armored fighting vehicles used there:
M4A3 75(W) VVSS                 Pz.
IV Ausf. J    
M4A3 76(W) VVSS                 Pz. V Ausf. G "Panther"
M4A3E2 "Jumbo"                    Pz. VI Ausf. E "Tiger"
                                               Pz. VI Ausf. B "King Tiger"
M10 GMC                               StuG III Ausf. G
M18 GMC                               Jagdpanzer IV
M36 GMC                               Pz. IV/70 (A) & (V)
M15 CGMC                            Flakpanzer IV "Wirbelwind"
M16 MGMC                           Sd.Kfz.251/21

 

The 76mm M1 gun fitted to the Sherman, M10 and M18 might not be capable of penetrating the sloped frontal armor a Panther (Sd.Kfz.171) or even Königstiger (Sd.Kfz.182), but it can penetrate formers turret frontally, while later can be flanked more easily. Then again the King Tiger should be a rarity anyway. 
All mentioned tanks had a vision cupola and/or multiple periscopes installed, allowing the commander to observe the battlefield.
I keep beating this dead horse!

Out of the few games within the tank simulator niche I can't think of one not based on the Eastern Front. I see the Developers need to earn money, but I miss the time IL2 envisioned and successfully published Add-Ons of never before covered scenarios and aircraft (as well as now tanks)...

 

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thanks for T34 info.

 

Obviously there shouldn't be some external 3rd person camera...I figured that was a given :). We should be looking through hatches and vision ports/cupola's ect.

 

It would be a pity to not have infantry. Crewman need targets for their MG's!

 

Taking into account the engagement distances on the eastern front - I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "who gets the first shot off" - depending on the distance it might take 1 or 2 shots to get a proper range on your target. And say the next one is a hit, that doesn't equate to the tank being knocked out. 

 

So let's hope the damage model is extensive. This is probably one of if not the most important factors = ballistics and damage models. For example: engine, transmission, turret/gun mech, weapon site, tracks - all sorts of things need to be able to be damaged or rendered broken (or killed in the case of a crewman). Another aspect that would really add to immersion would be an increase of dirt and grim on your viewports and weapon sights - say when X amount of explosions are within X amount of proximity of your tank (just a thought). And obviously the glass could get damaged, decreasing your situational awareness. Even though it's a RTS, Graviteam Tactics Op. Star or Mius Front simulate all the mentioned stuff above and then some. It really is interesting to watch a battle unfold. It's pretty hilarious how a strategy game is better modeled than War Thunder hahaha. 

 

And 100x100km map for tank combat is plenty large... I honestly don't care about combined arms (tanks and planes multiplayer). I'd be fine with AI air support or something. Ground assets and environmental details are far more important to me than airplanes if we're talking about a tank sim expansion. 

 

As the plan is now, I will play both Soviet and German armor. I think sitting in the SU-152 will be a very...unique feeling. I would be far, FAR less excited if it was western front combat. 

 

...there are many more things to consider. One is ammo amount and type carried. A StuG for example will have a much smaller amount of ammo therefor a shorter duration in combat relative to any Panzer. Maybe they can have some feature where you can pull back and replenish your ammo. 

 

Another feature to consider is smoke, smoke discharges ect.

Edited by NETSCAPE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the amount of German AFV's that were committed to the battle Prokhorovka. Wikipedia says about 290 tanks and assault guns (and by assault guns, we can assume StuG's, hehe).

 

But I did come up with some rough numbers that made up the divisions and attached battalions involved in the area... I didn't include half-tracks or self-propelled artillery such as the wespe, hummel ect:

 

 

II SS Panzer Corps under the command of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Paul Hausser:
 
LAH SS Panzergrenadier Div (1.SS)
Pz. III M = 13
Pz. IV H = 83
Pz. VI = 13
StuG III G = 35
Panzerjaeger 38 = 21
 
Das Reich SS Panzergrenadier Div (2.SS)
T-34D 747® = 26
Pz. III M = 70
Pz. IV H = 33
Pz. VI = 14
StuG III G = 34
Marder III = 12
 
Totenkopf SS Panzergrenadier Div (3.SS)
Pz. III M = 63
Pz. IV H = 44
Pz. IV F = 8
Pz. VI = 15
StuG III G = 35
Marder III = 11
 
--------------------------------------------------------

 

XXXXVIII Panzer Corps under the command of General Otto von Knobelsdorff
 
11th Panzer Division
Pz. III M = 62
Panzer IV G = 26
Marder II = 11
Pz. V = 96 (52nd Panzer Battalion)
 
Panzer-Grenadier-Division Großdeutschland
Pz. III M = 28
Pz. IV G = 68
Pz. VI = 15
StuG III G = 35
Marder III = 20
 
3rd Panzer Division
Pz. III M = 59
Pz. IV G = 23
StuG III G = 3
Marder II = 14
Pz. V = 96 (51st Panzer Battalion)
 
--------------------------------------------------------
 
III Panzer Corps under the command of General Hermann Breith
 
6th Panzer Division
Pz. III M = 52
Pz. III N = 18
Pz. IV G = 28
Marder II = 14
Pz. VI = 45 (503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion)
 
19th Panzer Division
Pz. III M = 38
Pz. IV G = 38
Marder III = 12
 
7th Panzer Division
Pz. III M = 49
Pz. III N = 13
Pz. IV G = 37
Marder III = 6
 
--------------------------------------------------------
 
 
(Additionally these StuG battalions were attached to Infantry divisions in the area):
 
911th StuG Battalion = 22 StuG III G
905th StuG Battalion = 23 StuG III G
393rd StuG Battalion = 12 StuG III G
228th StuG Battalion = 31 StuG III G
 
...and possibly a couple more Battalions. Of course these StuG Battalions include small numbers of StuH 42's as well.
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------
 
TOTALS:
 
T-34D 747® = 26
 
Pz. III M = 434
Pz. III N = 31
Pz. IV F = 8
Pz. IV G = 220
Pz. IV H = 160
Pz. V = 192
 
Pz. VI = 102
 
Panzerjaeger 38 = 21
Marder II = 28
Marder III = 61
StuG III G = 142 (or 230 including the attached StuG Battalions noted above)
 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

And I will leave you with an image of StuG III G's from the battle of Kursk...

 

28168243_156858855015030_525673577912021

Edited by NETSCAPE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I added two more options:

 

  • Devs, please add a StuG variant.

 

  • I prefer the comfort of my hanger, not the front line. 

 

I change my vote from Panther to StuG. StuG life!

 

417492.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am sure i will have fun in all of them  :)

 

Am sure I read somewhere that there were 48 M4(A2?) present at Kursk, while insignificant number comparatively, is enough for inclusion (for me) if true. Not sure it was at Prokhorovka though

 

Actually looking forward to the Ferdinand, interesting design (electric motors sort of like a modern hybrid) from memory (books) they were not as bad as 'legend' has it, they mostly achieved there directives and had similar loss rates to Tiger units, plus that Gun!! (NOOB!! ;) )  

 

SU-152 will also be unique and SU-122 could be brutal at close range, who wont enjoy Tiger and Panther, just like Bodenplatte I can start to justify all of them ( I expect we will get the correct model T-34)

 

I had advocated strongly for Stug III when tanks were first released.. :cool:

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am sure i will have fun in all of them  :)

 

Am sure I read somewhere that there were 48 M4(A2?) present at Kursk, while insignificant number comparatively, is enough for inclusion (for me) if true. Not sure it was at Prokhorovka though

 

Actually looking forward to the Ferdinand, interesting design (electric motors sort of like a modern hybrid) from memory (books) they were not as bad as 'legend' has it, they mostly achieved there directives and had similar loss rates to Tiger units, plus that Gun!! (NOOB!! ;) )  

 

SU-152 will also be unique and SU-122 could be brutal at close range, who wont enjoy Tiger and Panther, just like Bodenplatte I can start to justify all of them ( I expect we will get the correct model T-34)

 

I had advocated strongly for Stug III when tanks were first released.. :cool:

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

I believe =27=Davesteu is correct - I can't find any evidence that M4's were involved at Kursk. They arrived via lend lease program in 43, but were allocated to units in 44 it looks like. 

 

I found this article http://www.byronhartshorn.com/2017/03/01/american-m3-grant-tanks-at-kursk/ --- it has some info about M3 Grant and Stuarts in the Kursk area operations.

 

I also did some digging on the composition of the various Soviet units involved in the area. It seems the ranks still had many many T-70's still. I'd rather see those than a M4. I rather see Pz. III's engaging T-70s instead of T-34s or Shermans. 

 

~personally I do not like the idea of the M4 being included, even as a collector tank. I rather stick to historical realism. Now if we get battles in 1944, sure, throw in some M4's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to dig out 'Comrade Emcha' Red Army Shermans of WW2: Claude Gillono and Leife Hulbert

 

(Emcha = Russian slang for M 4)

 

it suggests the 229th Separated Tank regiment having 38 M4A2 at Kursk, mentioned in official correspondence as part of Central Front 1943 (but no more info than that)

 

the only other unit mentioned as using Shermans in 43 was 563rd Separated Tank Battalion (mainly using M3) having a small number attached used on North Caucasian Front 

 

All the other 26 Tank Corps/Brigades and Regiments mentioned are only used in early 44 onwards with some only used in 45

 

definitely would seem the majority were only used in 44 about half of them being M4A2 (76) but all 4000 or so were diesel powered M4A2 versions (same engine as the M3) to simplify logistics, M4 deliveries were from Nov 42 until War's end

 

M4A2 Tanks issued to front line units are recorded as 36 in 42, 479 in 43, 1578 in 44 and 570 in 45.

 

Not very fond of two crew T-70 which was slower than T-34, personally I just don't see it being used much, so happy for AI version to represent the many at Kursk  :)

 

Hope there is at least an AI Churchill and M3(s)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since i assume the tanks will perform as factory fresh and not break down often, i would like to give the Panther a shot. Nimbler than the Tiger but still decent firepower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since i assume the tanks will perform as factory fresh and not break down often, i would like to give the Panther a shot. Nimbler than the Tiger but still decent firepower?

 

Oh it's beyond decent firepower my friend :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KV-1, to have a leisurely stroll around the battlefield undisturbed.

 

Not if there is an Elefant/Ferdinand lurking in the woods  :)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add my two cents to the topic, I'm the only one who voted for the SU-152. :biggrin:

At medium to short range dat german armor is going to melt like this guy below. :lol:

If the German side needed anything more it would be more variants of Panzer III (M or N) as these were a major part of the Panzerwaffe in 43 especially at Kursk, the new Panthers and Tigers were pretty useless and had a very minor impact due to their extreme unreliability, the new Panthers were catching fire for no other reason than design flaws combined with the heat, Tigers...well if you have know anything about Tiger tanks (and especially how the Henschel model was selected) it's that these were a logistical and maintenance nightmare that wasn't even close to worth a pair of Panzer 4s.

The Ferdinand will be useless, unless you are sniping from 2-3 kilometers away DAKpilot.

A good suggestion imo would be a SU-76M along with a Marder II or III so we can have something thats morelogic as this battle that was pretty much large German tank formations suiciding onto well prepared Soviet AT killzones surrounded with infinite minefields, also if you want a Stug i'm pretty sure a Stug F would be more accurate than a G model correct me if i'm wrong.

giphy.gif

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A StuG III Ausf G would be the correct version as the production switched from late F to early G already in late 1942 / early 1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A StuG III Ausf G would be the correct version as the production switched from late F to early G already in late 1942 / early 1943.

Alright, basically a better gun and sideskirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking into account the engagement distances on the eastern front - I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "who gets the first shot off" - depending on the distance it might take 1 or 2 shots to get a proper range on your target. And say the next one is a hit, that doesn't equate to the tank being knocked out.
the first hit is more than likely to determine the victor

 

I honestly don't care about combined arms (tanks and planes multiplayer)

Well, that's your fair opinion, but I wonder why they don't go for an independent solution then.

 

And I will leave you with an image of StuG III G's from the battle of Kursk... 28168243_156858855015030_525673577912021

Sorry to correct you, but the picture shows Sd.Kfz.250 Ausf. B. It can't be Kursk therefore. The landscape also doesn't correspond with this area. From a feeling I guess it's more likely somewhere in the Balkans or Italy.

 

Had to dig out 'Comrade Emcha' Red Army Shermans of WW2: Claude Gillono and Leife Hulbert ... it suggests the 229th Separated Tank regiment having 38 M4A2 at Kursk, mentioned in official correspondence as part of Central Front 1943 (but no more info than that)

Correcting myself, I have the 229th with 48th Army, which was involved in the northern part of the Battle of Kursk, true.

Wikipedia.ru also shows it subordinate to this Army.

 

Not very fond of two crew T-70 which was slower than T-34, personally I just don't see it being used much, so happy for AI version to represent the many at Kursk

Well, I'm prejudiced in favor of this small tank, but I guess you're right.

Then again its small size can be adventurous and it would be more fitting than a SU-122.

 

SU-76M

SU-76M was just factory trialed during Battle of Kursk.

 

a Stug F would be more accurate than a G model correct me if i'm wrong

Correcting you  :P  StuG III G is appropriate, though some F for sure could be found in the ranks.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

also if you want a Stug i'm pretty sure a Stug F would be more accurate than a G model correct me if i'm wrong.
 

 

Post #15. I literally type out the armor compositions of the German divisions that were in the area. Lots, LOTS of StuG III G's.  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry to correct you, but the picture shows Sd.Kfz.250 Ausf. B. It can't be Kursk therefore. The landscape also doesn't correspond with this area. From a feeling I guess it's more likely somewhere in the Balkans or Italy.
 

 

Yep you are right. They would have to be 251's if it was Kursk.  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright alright for some reason I was picturing the later version with the Saukopfblende (no idea how I spelled that right lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the ground war in the Eastern Front without the StuG.

 

Salutations,

 

Regardless of the tank type(s) provided, if 'terrain masking' isn't implemented, it will all be a bust. We simply must be able to move unseen behind AI vehicle sight blocking woods and or ground elevations.  :salute:

Edited by Thad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salutations,

 

Regardless of the tank type(s) provided, if 'terrain masking' isn't implemented, it will all be a bust. We simply must be able to move unseen behind AI vehicle sight blocking woods and or ground elevations.  :salute:

 

I'm pretty certain those issues will be addressed. If not it would be un-playable in my opinion. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep you are right. They would have to be 251's if it was Kursk. :salute:

Yes and no. What he means is the later (simplified) version of the SdKfz 250 (the Ausf. B) was not present at Kursk. The earlier Ausf A with a much more complex shape was definitely present.

Edited by csThor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:58 PM, NETSCAPE said:

 

Well have fun sipping schnapps in your comfy hanger while we're out here winning battles.  :lol:

By taking and holding ground. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About M4A2 Sherman ... 
 

I have a book about the battle of Kursk and a book about operating Lend-Lease equipment in the USSR, I have not found any information on their use in Kursk, neither during the first battles, or after its completion. It is possible, however, that several tanks were used there as part of reinforcements. But ... first units equipped with large amounts of M4A2 were used until the autumn of 1943. Most of them were the same units that previously used M3 Lee and M3 Stuart. 
 

Personally from the Soviet side I will play mainly with the M4A2 tank, if it is available, of course, because my great-grandfather served on Sherman in 1944 and 1945 in the forces of the 2nd Ukrainian front. Also because this vehicle was ... different, it will stand out from the others.

It is possible that this version will be in the game, with the old type of the front armor plate.


M4A2% 2075mm% 20Early% 20Front_small.jpg M4A2% 2075mm% 20Early% 20Top_small_shade.jpM4A2% 2075mm% 20Early_2_small.jpg 

However, a better solution would be to add other Lend-Lease tanks, eg M3 Lee / Stuart or Churchill heavy tank previously mentioned by Davesteu. And these tanks were actively used in the Battle of Kursk.   M4A2 is unknown, due to the lack of confirmed information with their use.

Edited by GTursonA523
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...