Need Help w/the T-34 reload time thing...

[Seagoon]

Can someone direct me to web-based info that supports the Pnzr 4 being able to fire at 3x the rate of the T-34?

So far the material I've found indicates that the T-34 practical rate of fire with the F-32 76mm gun was only a round or two per minute slower than the Pnzr 4. Nothing I've found indicates a 3x gap.

Thanks for your Help.

And yes, I am magnetically drawn to planes and vehicles with lowest possible ENY value. It's a sickness.

[Pongo]

The ROF that the main gun is capable of mechanically is the least of the T34/76s rof problems.
The two man turret really imposes huge tactical problems on the vehicle that Pyro has simplified into a severe ROF restriction. Lack of turrent floor, Horrible crew visiblility facilities, very awkward ammo storage.

Sitting still on the range with the ammo arranged just so, the tank could probably fire as fast as you describe. But in real combat situations the ROF degenerates far quicker then the german tanks or the T34/85 for that matter.
It was a weakness that the soviets identified before the tank made it to production and designed and prototyped the solution before the Germans invaded. All such refinement was discarded in persuit of increased production.

Be glad that the drivers view is provided as if the tank could be used in battle with the drivers hatch open. In reality the driver could only use his peep holes as the hatch was integral to the glacis plate.  A MG can easily kill a t34 if the drivers hatch is open.

[Seagoon]

Hi Pongo,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate all of your points.

Some thoughts:

I'm not sure if the restrictions on the T-34 aren't still a tad excessive. All of our GVs drive around in an "unbuttoned" state without suffering from it. For instance, the external "pintle view" in the Pnzr4 and Tiger 1 is not the restricted commanders cupola view that would have been the only safe command position. If you are in the pintle view, technically a 7.62 bullet should easily take out your tank commander.

Additionally the T34 Hull MG is unbelievably irritating compared to the Panzer, Ostwind, and Tiger Hull MGs all of which give you a view as if you were sitting on the front of the tank.

One last question, do we have the early war L11 T34 or the F32 modeled? The F32 had a much better gun lay-out which greatly increased the rate of fire.

Thanks for your reply,

SEAGOON

[Pongo]

I am not sure your being reasonable.
The Panzer was designed to be fought with the comanders hatch open, The later tiger even more so.
The T34 was designed to never have the drivers hatch open in combat.



really.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Pongo
I am not sure your being reasonable.
The Panzer was designed to be fought with the comanders hatch open, The later tiger even more so.
The T34 was designed to never have the drivers hatch open in combat.



really.

Really....who in their right mind WOULDNT want the T-34 driver hatch open during combat? That's airconditioning at its finest!

[humble]

The T-34 modeled in AH had its ammo stored IN the floor under gratings...the loader had to pull up the grate and dump the empty...put back the grate...pull up the grate to get a new round...put that grate back down...load the gun...all the while the turret might be turning. Compared to the german british and american tanks which generally had a gunner loader and tank commnader. The tank had racks for ready rounds...later rounds were stored behind blast doors so the rounds wouldnt cook off inside a damaged tank (not sure if M-26 had this or not)...

[Pongo]

They implemented the wrong tank, The T34/85 with its 3 man turrent and equivilent gun to the Pak 40 on the Panzer IV would have been a better tank to implent.
But the driver would still have had to use a view port at all times.

[Urchin]

Even the early T-34/76 had "ready rounds", 5 in the turret.  The rest were stored under rubber matting in the floor of the tank.  

I'm not completely sure why they didn't model the T-34/85, the side armor was ~10mm thicker than the /76, the front armor was the same.  The  gun would have been much more useful.  

As it is though, I'd say the T-34 is almost competitive with the Panzer IV, I think the reason it sees almost no use is because it is useless against a Tiger.

[MOIL]

The T34 reloads are a bit hampersome, just add the Wirbelwind and all will be fine...............I promise:aok

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by humble
The T-34 modeled in AH had its ammo stored IN the floor under gratings...the loader had to pull up the grate and dump the empty...put back the grate...pull up the grate to get a new round...put that grate back down...load the gun...all the while the turret might be turning. Compared to the german british and american tanks which generally had a gunner loader and tank commnader. The tank had racks for ready rounds...later rounds were stored behind blast doors so the rounds wouldnt cook off inside a damaged tank (not sure if M-26 had this or not)...

T-34/76


1. Three rounds on the right side;
2. Magazines for the coaxial MG;
3. The loader's seat;
4. Reserve storage of the optic prisms;
5. The bulkhead;
6. The commander's seat;    
7. Six rounds on the left side;
8. The driver's seat;
9. The trigger pedal of the gun;
10. The trigger pedal of the MG;
11. Magazines for the bow MG;
12. Ammo boxes on the floor.

T-34/85



http://www.battlefield.ru/map.html

Blast doors in a T-34??

[GRUNHERZ]

T34/85 would give you a Pz4 level gun and high ROF in a very fast traverse turret combined with Tiger 1 class front and side turret armor all rumbling along at 35mph.

As it stands now the current T34/76 has the advantage in armor, speed and turret travarse speed while the Pz4 has better firepower.  

Even though I prefer the Pz4 overall the current T34/76 scenario at least gives you a chance to choose between priorities. Compare that to a T34/85 which would dominte the Pz4 in all categories with a possible tie only in firepower. Even this would still give the reletave firepower/armor kill distance advantage to T34/85 because of its much better armor comapred to pz4 if both have same gun power. In other words it would be no choice at all.

HTC decided to wait for T34/85 introiduction for when the Panther comes out, this is higly logical considering they were contemporaries with both being introduced around summer or late 1943.  In this case panther has firepower and front armor advantages. T34/85 has better side armor and turret traverse and is a much smaller target. Speed would likely be similar with T34 maybe a bit faster. ROF might be similar.  Again a choice.

[Pongo]

Ya if you overstate the frontal armour of the T34, overstate its real turrent traverse speed, and overstate its cross country speed they are comparable.

The T34/85 would be slightly supperior to the Panzer IV, but not have an AAMG.

It would have been great and it woudnt have had to be play ballanced.

[GRUNHERZ]

Overstate what Pongo?

T34 turret side armor is 70 or 75 mm sloped. Tiger I side armor is 80 vertical.  Thats pretty much the same.

T34/85 turret front is 90mm curved where Tiger 1 is 100mm vertical, again pretty much the same.

As for AH, it is clear that T34/76 frontal armor is superior to AH Pz4 frontal armor. I know this because a T34/76 can kill a Pz4 frontally at short/meduim ranges but cannot kill another T34/76 frontally at turret or glacis at even point blank range unless you hit one single specific spot a few times.  I know this as a fact since another T34/76 and I spend about 10 minutes trying to kill each other at 20 yards after we detracked each other.  

Turret traverse speed is so much better with T34/76 than Pz4  and I have seen no evidence that the 85mm turret is drastically slower.

As for cross counbtry speeds all the Tanks in AH are ridculusly fast because they can make their published road speeds over rough terrain. I really dont care abiut this issue as removing it would make tank fights too slow and boring.

And finally the 7.92mm pintle gun is generally useless vs planes and totaly irrelevant in a tank vs tank comparsion.

[Pongo]

Well if you have decided then.
I think it was way easier for a Panzer IV H to kill a T34 frontally IRL then in AH. So I feel its frontal armour is overstated.

I think that giving near road speeds to the Panzer IV with its suspension is not nearly the stretch that giving it to the T34 is with is suspension. So I think its top speed is overstated.

I think that IRL the turrent speeds were at best equal between the two vehicles.

And I think that most planes are vulnerable to the 7.92 especially with an invincible comander to man it, I have been sent home many times by that gun and have killed many planes with it.  The Shermans 50 will be way better of course but the 7.92 is infinitly better then nothing with the approaches that planes must make in AH.

You know way to much about this to even hint that their is any form of parity between the Panther and the T34/85 so I will just ignore that you hinted and focus on the ballance between the Panzer and the T34.

Because they are treating the Panzer IVH vs T34/76 relationship as if the Panzer IVH was a Panzer IIIH they now will end up with a T34/85 that is like a Panther.

[GRUNHERZ]

Parity between Panther and T34/85?  I said no such thing. I simply listed where each had advantages or disadvantages.

I actually think the Panther will be a tough tank to place into AH because it will have better firepower, frontal armor, speed, traverse and rof than Tiger. Where does it belong? Its only weakness is pretty thin side armor which is roughly comporable to the current T34/76.

That said I still think the T34/85 should be realesed when Panther gets here considering they were contemporaries from summer/late 43 while the long gun  Panzer IV and Tigers date back to 1942 and fought against the T34/76.

As for AA defense I find the pintle gun useless, but the coax gun is very useful as a ranging gun for the 75mm AP if the enemy pilots are that dumb...  

And no I dont count hitting oil of an IL2 to mean anything, his 23mm will have plenty of time to rip you to shreds.

Oh Pongo, in general  I'm definitely talking about how I see things are and how I think things will be modeled in AH at our current level of the armor game development.  RL historical scenarios were much different and more complicated of course.