Regarding the T-34

[Urchin]

 I'd didn't start it, Herr Groinhurts.  

In this thread, there've been 6 people basically agreeing with what I'm saying, which is that the T-34 we've got isn't competitive with the Panzer IV.  

We've got one rabid Germanophile insisting that anyone who wants a tank that would be competitive with the Panzer IV is a whiney baby and probably a communist.  

I'm sure you can pick out that person.

[GRUNHERZ]

Its beyond all reason that you say I suggest you are communist, its outrageous because I never said anythinmg like that in this thread. But you repeatdly call me a nazi or soimething.. You are the one who statted this irrelevant political namec alling and you are the oinly one who participtaed in it. Its uttetrly shameful that you try to turn it arounbd now...  Bizzare...

But hey that last post is just like all ur others, full of nonsense.

Show me anywhere where I said that T34 and Pz4 were even?  SHOW ME!

All I have been saying from my VERY FIRST POST is:

T34 advantages:

Speed

Armor

Turret traverse

Pz4 advantages:

Firepower


Everything else is you getting all hurt and agressive because I called you whiner..

Go look at my first post and look at the chldish way you overeacted when I simply listed the simple facts about these tanks as modeled in AH..

Why are yoiu acting this way urchin?

[Urchin]

No Herr Groinhurts, everything else is me attempting to point out that your argument is baseless, followed by more frothing at the mouth from you.

I'm done though, go curl up with Mein Kampf and relax, content that you've won a great victory for your idol.  You are basically beyond reason.

[GRUNHERZ]

So my argument is baseless?

Are saying T34 isnt faster?

That T34 isnt better armored?

That t34 doesant have faster turret traverse?

That Pz4 doesnt have better firepower?

I'm glad that you are done, because I wouldnt want yoiu to eat crow and admit everyting I said was true about the realtive strenghts and weakneses of the two tanks..

And yes, the bizzare personal attcaks really do help your argument!

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Karnak
I disagree.  The Panzer IV H would still have the firepower advantage and the armor advantage.  The Panzer IV H has 80mm of armor on the front.  The T-34 has 45mm of armor at a 60° slope which gives it an effective 72mm of armor on the front, 8mm less than the Panzer IV H.  And that is assuming the round is coming straight in from the front.  Any down arc on the round's pather decreases the T-34's effective armor while such and arc increases the Panzer IV H's effective armor.


As to the comments about a choice, well, no there isn't.  In tank A you drive for 9 minutes and have much harder time of killing anything, even if you get the drop on it.  In tank B you drive for 10 minutes and can kill tank A or tank B with ease.


It is like saying that there is no choice for a low altitude fighter sweep because the La-7 is in the game.  However, the La-7 is reasonably killable by a Fw190A-5, for example, whereas the Panzer IV H is not reasonably killable by the T-34/76D.  The T-34/85 would be overall better than the Panzer IV H, but at least both are fully killable to eachother and that means that there are to viable choices.  Right now there are not.

Here you go Herr Groinhurts... why don't you respond to Karnak's post.  Might be a bit difficult since he has basically shown you are wrong, but I'm sure you will come up with some sort of inspiration.

What Karnak is saying is that

1.  No, the T-34 does not have an armor advantage.  No amount of frothing at the mouth will change this fact, no matter how much you try.  

2.  The "speed advantage" is meaningless since all it really means is that you can come back and get killed again a little more quickly.  Furthermore, with your vast experience (albiet on the dying end) in a T34, you should know that the T-34 doesn't have a speed advantage over broken ground or hills.  Apparently this fact has escaped your notice.  

3.  Even if the T-34/85 WERE introduced, the Panzer IV would STILLhave a firepower and armor advantage.

[GRUNHERZ]

I did respond to his post, he is wrong because he ignores deflection issues. Higly sloped armore as on T34 front dissepates sell energy by deflecting shots that would only go straight through vertical armor of the same horizontal thickness because te shell energy is not re-directed. Heck you can even go look at Pyro's post where he mentiones that deflection of shots will be a big factor to T34 sloped armor capability.

So that cover the hull front armor.

Hull side armor is clearly a T34 advantage from figures and game experience.

Turret side armor again favors T34.

Turret front armor is better on T34 in AH2, because a T34 gun cannot kill T34 turret frontally at short range but can kill Pz4 turret frontally at the same range.

The 34 is better armored in every way.

[Urchin]

I'd take his word over yours, to be honest.  He is somewhat less biased, in my opinion.  

Anyway, I edited my last post before this one.  

I'm done for the night, tired of banging my head against your rhetoric.

[GRUNHERZ]

Now yoy say that Pz4 would have an armor advantage over T34/85..

Thats simply bizzare, considering that T34/85 gets 90mm curved frontal armor on turret and sloped 75mm on turret sides - basically giving it Tiger 1 turret armor levels. Hull armor gets stronger too.


You really have no clue bout these tanks Urchin, either that or you are just trolling...

[Karnak]

There is a deflection issue there for certain.  I was unsure of how much it was though.  When I queried a friend of mine who used to command tanks (M1A1s, not WWII junk) he said that the greater percieved thickness was the deflection bonus.  Therefore 45mm of armor at a 60° slope should be equal to 72mm or armor at a 0° slope.  He said that there was no advantage beyond that.


GRUN,

The fact is that the T-34/76D is not competitive with the Panzer IV H.  The usage and kill numbers speak to that.

You cannot simply line up bullet points of advantages and total the number of bullets to see which is better.  In tanks, the gun is, by far, the single most important factor.  A tank's capability is defined by it's gun's capability far more than any single performance factor on an aircraft determines it's capability.


Whether or not the T-34/85 would be overbearing we will never know, unless it is added as a free ride and the Panther V G is added as a perk ride.  Personally I think that it would get more use than the Panzer IV H, but not by anywhere near the ratio that the Panzer IV H gets used over the T-34/76D.  I'd guess, maybe 2/3rds T-34/85s and 1/3rd Panzer IV Hs instead of 13/14ths Panzer IV Hs and 1/14th T-34/76Ds.

[MiloMorai]

Karnak,

what is a T-34/76D? I have never seen that designation before.

[Karnak]

It is the one in AH.  Just labeling it "T-34/76" doesn't diferenciate between the various T-34/76 versions.  So far as I know there was only one T-34/85 version.

T-34/76A, Model 40: First models had 2 man turret that didn't provide vision devices or a cupola for the commander. Had L/30.3 Model 1938 tank gun mounted in a mount shaped like a pigs head. The first 115 vehicles had rear MGs installed. Had solid rubber tires around disc wheels.
T-34/76B, Model 41: Had rolled plate turret with a L/40 gun installed in an angular gun cradle. Late models had all steel wheels and a cast turret. 28 tons.
T-34/76C, Model 42: Larger turret with 2 roof hatches. Had improved tracks, vision, and armor for the hull MG. 30 tons. Driver had protecting visor for window. Hull MG is mounted in ball mantlet.
T-34/76D: Hexagonal turret and wider mantlet, plus external jettisonable fuel tanks. Thicker armor up to 70 mm. 30.9 tons. Two hatch covers in top of turret, that when open, led to it being nicknamed "Mickey Mouse" by German soldiers.
T-34/76E: Cupola added to turret and all welded construction.
T-34/76F: Cast turret with no cupola, 5 speed gear. Only 100 built as production switched to T-34/85.

[GRUNHERZ]

Can anybody find any statement of mine in this thread where I say T34 is even with Panzer 4?

Anybody?

Hello?

Anyone?

Where do you people get this idea?

All I have ever given wrt to this topic was a listing of the advantages and disadvantages of the two tanks.  Why people freak out over that and call me a nazi is beyond me...

Karnak I'm not so sure how applicable this  modern tankers info is considering the vast gap in the technology of guns and armor between his time and WW2. The weapons and armors he is accustomed to are much different in materials, compositions and  power than the WW2 standard of solid AP shot against simple face hardened armor.

Modern weapons are many times as powerful as WW2 guns and fire much flatter trajetories with much more force, all of which reduces chances of unwanted deflections.   Look how poorly the heavly sloped glacis of T72 performed against modern rounds...The groweth in tank gun power after WW2 was astronomical as even meduim tanks by 1950s allready had double the  AP performance of the long barreled 88 of king tiger...

Modern armors are entirely different also - often consiting of layerd soft materials like plastics, rubber, aluminum, even airgaps. All that could have an effect on the deflection capability of modern armor.

You said it yourself by saying he did not  crew "WW2 junk."  His experience is with a much different set of technologies.

So from his modern perspetive your friend is 100% right, but I deont think it tranfers to WW2 era technology.

And I can just see what Urchin will say to that, but let him...

[MiloMorai]

So it is only an AH designation. Thanks Karnak.

[Karnak]

No, that data was from a different site.  AH simply IDs it as the T-34.  It doesn't even specify that it is a T-34/76.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Karnak
No, that data was from a different site.  AH simply IDs it as the T-34.  It doesn't even specify that it is a T-34/76.

Then the site could be wrong, for afaik the Soviets only defined the tank by the year of its manufacturing introduction.