Panzer IV H vs T-34/76 (43)

[Arlo]

Sheesh!

Imagine if we'd gotten the Shermie (Baybee!) .... like we SHOULDA!

The sky would have fallen and we'd be dead.

Dead, I tell ya.

[storch]

Wow,  as I tell my squaddie Crumpp regarding any modelling concerns.  Why bother submitting data?  To the casual observer it seems that HTC pretty much models things as they see fit.  This tank will be what HTC wants it to be.  After all don't you guys know that 88mm AP rounds from tigers often riccochetted from M-3s??  Let's not even discuss the auto retraction system for flaps in all WWII aircraft except the American models and landing gear that can be lowered before flaps can be extended.  Just to name two.  

[GScholz]

The Russians preferred quantity to quality as usual. This was very beneficial to them since they didn't have quality trained crews for them, but they did have a lot of untrained people.

Like one German tanker who survived the war said: "My Tiger was a match for ten T-34s ... the problem was there were always twelve of them."

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Pongo
It has little effect beyond the increase in effective thickness.


I was taught to divide the slope into 90 then mulitply the actual mm by that amount.

90 div 60 = 1.5 * 45 = 70 or so....
To double the effective armour you would need a 45 % angle on the plate. Or thats what I was taught.

By the soviets own numbers. The 76mm  41.5 calibre gun on a T34-76 has an 80% chance of penetrating a verticle steel plate 75mm thick at 500 meters.
At 100 meters that number raises to 86mm. Still not enough to promis a kill on a Panzer IVh lower hull but obviosly there is a chance even at 500 and particularly on the gun mantle.





The Panzer IV with an L48 dominates a 76mm T34. Much greater kill distance, much better fighting tank in everything but profile and ground preasure.

The T34 was not what some think it was.
On the battle field it was slower then German Panzer IIIs and IVs.
"Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission."

Thats a wartime soviet assessment.

The T34-76 will have a greatly inferior gun to the Panzer IVh, inferior tactical speed and inferior armour on its front hull. And no AAMG and only a 2 man turrent.

Having it the standard soviet tank instead of the T34-85 is a mistake.(unless you allow a player to take platoons of AI ones like we do for bombers)

And that is aside from the absolute helplessness of the T34-76 vs the Tiger 1. At least the T34-85 would only be as helpless as the Panzer IV.  Not twice as helpless like the T34-76 would be.

Here's what I think..

In AH the T34 will be much faster than PzIV because thats what the ubiqutous stats say.

It's gun will be about equally strong because by the figures Pyro posted HTC seems to be using a rather high penetration figure for the special sub calibre high performance AP ammo on T34 while, according to my experiences shooting at Tiger I,  the AH Pz IV does not seem to have its high performance AP ammo modeled at all.

The T34s armor will be vastly better in AH because of the game's curious bouncing hit model that even gives ricochets on 90 degree plates at 100 meters or less.

I'm not sure how HTC will model the T34/76 two man turrets limitations.

Will be intersting to see how this really turns out.

[Angus]

In the real world, the T34 would be more than twice as fast. 9.9 miles against 25 is a big difference. But how does that enter AH?
Does anyone have the engine HP to weight?
Anyway, those extra 10 miles of speed are sure to bring the T34 some real popularity. And it CAN kill a Panzer on rather equal terms.

[rshubert]

The fact that everybody and his brother begins the teardown of the AH models long before the introduction of the vehicle.

[ubadger]

Originally posted by Pongo
It has little effect beyond the increase in effective thickness.

I was taught to divide the slope into 90 then mulitply the actual mm by that amount.

90 div 60 = 1.5 * 45 = 70 or so....

Strange math, it says 30 degrees deflection from vertical plane is better then 60, because 90 div / 30 = 3 * 45 = 135 mm

Or maybe this math takes the deflection angle from horizontal plane - then for frontal armour of T-34 it is 30 degrees:

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34_85/armor.gif

Originally posted by Pongo The T34 was not what some think it was.
On the battle field it was slower then German Panzer IIIs and IVs.
"Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h.

It was pre-war assesment,  Pz-III had special gearbox, used quite rarely.


Anyway, Pz-IVH is not Pz-III.

[ubadger]

Originally posted by SELECTOR

on a different point, didnt the t34 have a hand cranked turret?

Nope, it was electrical.

Max rotation speed of turret was 4.2 rpm.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Angus
In the real world, the T34 would be more than twice as fast. 9.9 miles against 25 is a big difference. But how does that enter AH?
 

It will be interesting to see how  easy it is to roll (at speed) in AH when on a slope.........

but also it will go up and round those hills faster............cutting down time to target will make it popular IMO.......... plus at 100 rounds its a single handed town killer.

[GRUNHERZ]

The T34 supposedly did not have as good a HE round as the PzIv - so it might not be as gooa a town killer.

[Angus]

Hehe, for a true town killer, we need self propelled artillery. 10 mph?
The Churchill tank also had some interesting bombarding variants. Now that is one thing that could be used. Flamethrower, Mortar and heavy cannon variants. Although slow, WW2's best tank for really rough (stony?)  terrain.
And Grunherz:

"but also it will go up and round those hills faster............cutting down time to target will make it popular IMO........"

Took the words right out of my mouth there bud

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by storch
Let's not even discuss the

Good idea.

-Sik

[Pongo]

Wonder how the hatch in front of the T34s driver will impact it in AH2? As the only really vulnerable place on a tank in AH2 is the driver compartment(even more vulnerable then the back it seems) that huge hatch could cause real problems for T34 fans.

[storch]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Good idea.

-Sik

pfft allied flyers

[Pongo]

Things that they are not ready to model in the game but exist in the T34-76 but not the T34-85.
2 man turrent.
    The comander is the gunner. Unless he wants to spend 2 minutes jumping down..closing the hatch. Geting on his seat. Looking through the site..traversing onto a target and engaging it..he fights from the gun sight. Period. That is how the tank was designed to be used and it had to be used that way. The comander sits at the gun to direct the tank. He gets his gun sight, a forward view prism and a peep hole out the left side of the turrent. Thats it.
The commander is slaved to the gun. It is one of the worst mistakes ever made in tank design and the french and the russians made it.
No turrent basket. this is huge. So you have 2 men to spot, load, fire the gun, command the tank.  90% of the main ammo rounds are stored in the floor, under removable hatches. The loader must shuffle arround with the turrent as it traverses..remove big sections of the floor and pull 76mm rounds out to load in the gun. The gun has almost zero negative depression. Shooting down from a hull down postiion or taking a hull down postiion from a crest is almost impossible.
The driver cant just pop his head out to see better. He gets one slot to look through and other then that he has to raise a section of the front hull armour..look at a picture of the tank. A square yard of the front armour has to be opend up to give the driver a good view.

Absolutly vulnerable to anything that gets past the armour. German tanks could take some splinters inside and shake it off.The T34-76s blew up.
Most of the things that are really troubling to model in the game where fixed with the new turrent on the T34-85. Seperate gunner in a 5 man crew. More optics for the Comander, turrent basket with side mount ammo racks with seperate blast protection.  All things that were not just nice to have but neccesary unless you want your tanks fighting blind and dumb.
The disadvantages of the T34-76 where easy to over look when you where in a Panzer III with a short barreled 50mm gun and 40mm or front armour. But those Panzer IIIs still out fought the early T34-76s...
Against the Panzer IVH those disadvantages where huge. Your fighing dumb and slow and blind against a tank that can kill you at 1500 yards fairly easily.But you cant really kill him till at least 500 yards. That 1000 yard gap is a loooooong way buttoned up and blind.
There is no way they will model that tank accuratly. They will just model its armour thickness at face value..its speed at face value and its penetration at face value(probably giving it an exotic round to ballance the weakness of the normal round vs the germans) and let the tank behave as if it has the full F3 comander position and a gunner like it had a 5 man crew.