Author Topic: News... (Read 3636 times)

Tilt · « **Reply #45 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:54:08 AM »

yes the view of AH's T34 makes the turret ring below the angled turret armour seem higher then most pictures portray.......... also most pictures seem to portray a flat rather than curved forward mud guard............

Two of the pictures above show (1st and last) late 43 models with the commanders cupula it seems that we are getting the early 43 (nee 42 model) with no cupula.

I think the other two pictures actually show 42 models with the drum type fuel tanks strapped to the side.

68DevilM · « **Reply #46 on:** October 12, 2004, 10:56:16 AM »

wonder if it will be perked?

Karnak · « **Reply #47 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:23:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68DevilM
wonder if it will be perked?

Why would it be perked? The Panzer IV H is more potent, if slower.

68DevilM · « **Reply #48 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:37:25 AM »

just wondering

Karnak · « **Reply #49 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:49:10 AM »

Ah.

Well, the T-34/85 might show up as a perk tank. I don't think it should, but it is on the very upper end of what I think should be free tanks,

We're getting the T-34/76 (43) which has a significantly less powerful gun. It is faster than the Panzer IV H by a good margin. It's hull armor is thinner, but very sloped and will be interesting to see how that plays out in AH. The deck armor is 20mm thick as compared to the Panzer IV H's 12mm, but it has no pintle machine gun so that deck armor is all that it has against air attack.

I'll certainly use the T-34/76 over the Panzer IV H, but the T-34 series is my prefered WWII tank series.

SCDR · « **Reply #50 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:29:35 PM »

OK, what version is it going to be?

T-34/76D - Production model of 1943 with welded turret.
T-34/76E - Production model of 1943 with a commanders cupola.
T-34/76F - Production model of 1943 with a cast version of the T-34/76D turret.
T-34/85 - Production model of 1943 with a 85 mm gun and improved turret.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t34.php
"The T-34 design evolved throughout the war: the T-34/76B had a rolled-plate
turret; the T-34/76C had twin roof hatches instead of the one
large hatch; from the winter of 1942/3 the T-34/76D introduced
a hexagonal turret, wider gun mantlet and jettisonable exterior
fuel tanks; the T-34/76E added a cupola on the turret for the
commander and was of all welded construction; the T-34/76F
Had a cast rather than welded turret; during the winter of
1943/4 production of the T-34/85 began and used the turret of
the KV-85 tank which included an 85-mm main gun plus space for
an additional crew member so the commander did not also have
to fire the gun."

SCDR

Karnak · « **Reply #51 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:33:55 PM »

SCDR,

It is clearly not the T-34/76E as it lacks the commander's cupola and it is not a T-34/85.

Between the T-34/76D and T-34/76F I can't tell.

Zanth · « **Reply #52 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:35:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
but it has no pintle machine gun so that deck armor is all that it has against air attack.

As currently modeled yes. However, truth be told if the pilot was as nakedly vulnerable to gunfire as he ought to be when sitting at top of the tank - this would'nt be an issue.

Karnak · « **Reply #53 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:37:13 PM »

Zanth,

Very true.

I doubt it will change soon though.

Pongo · « **Reply #54 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:47:57 PM »

Its accurate. the turrent sat that high.
I would say it should be way better against M8s then the panzer.
Because it will likley be implemented as signifigantly faster and its rear and side armour are signifigantly better.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #55 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:56:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
GRUNHERZ,

Don't overestimate the effect of some of the clutter.

For example the tow hook mounts would sheer off before they'd cause the round to penetrate. The weakest point gives first.

Richocets would have lost most of their power and also would have deformed. The odds of getting through the turret armor after such a richochet is nil.

The turret ring does look quite vulnerable. I'd be interested to know how thick the armor on it is. Because it is a circle many of the rounds that strike it will be hitting at an angle other than 90°.

You wpild be surprised how those tow mounts will trap a shot and send it right throufg sloped armor. Trust me on this. I have pictures of it but no scanner..

The ricochets off the glacis are a problem. They can easily penetrate the thin armor at the bottom of the turret. Or in reverse the thin armor of a panthers hull roof when they ricochet off the bottom of the mantlet. Aditionaly in real life such impacts could petentially damage optics, deform the gun tube, or jam the gun.

I would think the circle of the turret ring armor ensures that more rounds will hit it a 90 degrees, since possible firing angles to achieve 90 degree shots are greater.

Also I'm not sure why you guys make such a fuss about having an AA MG, unless its a 50caliber weapon they are pretty useless. The IL2 doesnt really care about 30cal weapons in sdingle mounts. Due to its heavier roof armor I'd say the T34 is safer from IL2 23mm cannon attack than Panzer IV...

Zanth · « **Reply #56 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:27:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Also I'm not sure why you guys make such a fuss about having an AA MG,

Nobody is, you misunderstand. It is the modelling of an indestructible armored unit firing the gun that is not correct, and which leads to ahistorical use. (i.e they can inflict pilot wounds/kills but cannot receive them)

Ostwind and all other open manned guns similarly afflicted. In war damaging the gun didn't result in a kill, striking (or scaring off) the Mk1 homo sapien firing unit did that.

Karnak · « **Reply #57 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:27:55 PM »

GRUNHERZ,

I agree against the Il-2, but I would much rather attack a T-34 in a Mossie than a Panzer IV H. The Panzer always gets a pilot wound on me in the first or second pass, usually the first.

As to the turret ring, you're thinking vertically. Think horizontally. Unless the round strikes dead center from the firing tank's position it will be striking a surface that curves away from it. The farther from center the more likely the round will be deflected off into the air or ground.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #58 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:39:56 PM »

Karnak I am thinking horizontally.

O _

Of the two abouve which presents more angles to hit 90 degree from? The circle does. Yes the flat plate has more area but shooting at it off angle gives you more chances at deflection.

Why attack Panzer IV with a mosquito The cannon dont do damage any more and mombs aor rocklets are less effective, miss more and requre more work than the IL2s cannon. Also the IL2 is more survivavble than mossie against fighters if you are down low and killing tanks...

Karnak · « **Reply #59 on:** October 12, 2004, 01:59:03 PM »

GRUNHERZ,

I see what you are saying. The cicle always has a chance for a 90° impact. However, from straigt on if the tank has been positioned correctly the circle has much less of a 90° area. It depends on the positioning. I don't think the turret ring will be a big issue.

I haven't really done any anti-GV work since the tanks were hardened. That said, I've had plenty of pilot wounds when using bombs and rockets.