Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on October 01, 2004, 03:03:15 PM
-
Panzer IV H
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM
Maximum speed: 23.6mph
Cross Country: 9.9mph
Turning Radius: 19.42ft
Ground Pressure: 12.658lbs/in²
Weight: 50,000lbs?
Length w/gun: 23ft 3in
Height: 8ft 9.5in
Width: 9ft 5in
ARMOR
Hull Front, Upper: 80mm@12°
Hull Front, Lower: 80mm@14°
Hull Sides, Upper: 30mm@0°
Hull Sides, Lower: 30mm@0°
Hull Rear: 20mm@8° & 11°
Hull Top: 12mm@85°-90°
Hull Bottom: 10mm@90°
Turret Front: 50mm@10°
Turret Sides: 30mm@26°
Turret Rear: 30mm@15°
Turret Top: 14mm@84°-90°
MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 75mm KwK 40 L/48
Muzzle Velocity, PzGr 40: 3,248ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 30°, PzGr 40: 143mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 30°, PzGr 40: 120mm
Armor Penetration at 1000m, 30°, PzGr 40: 97mm
Armor Penetration at 1500m, 30°, PzGr 40: 77mm
T-34/76 (43)
Engine: W-2-34
Maximum speed: 34mph
Cross Country: 25mph
Turning Radius: 25.3ft
Ground Pressure: 10.24lbs/in²
Weight: 68,122lbs
Length w/gun: 22ft 1in
Height: 8ft 8in
Width: 9ft 7in
ARMOR
Hull Front, Upper: 47mm@60°
Hull Front, Lower: 45mm
Hull Sides, Upper: 40-45mm
Hull Sides, Lower: 45mm
Hull Rear: 45mm
Hull Top: 20mm
Hull Bottom: 15-20mm
Turret Front: 70mm
Turret Sides: 52mm
Turret Rear: 52mm
Turret Top: 16mm
MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2
Muzzle Velocity, BR-350P: 3,166ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 90°, BR-350P: 92mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 90°, BR-350P: 60mm
Note: Tanks are not my area and all data has been taken from the all knowing Internet, and we all know how reliable that is. Armor sloping is given if I found data for it, if it lacks data it does not mean that it is flat 90°.
-
Their comperable, in a nut shel the Gun on the Panzer is better, the Gun on the T34 is weaker, but the T34 has better armor, due in part to better sloping, so they in terms of their abaility to kill oneanother are roughly even at normal ranges.
I am happy to see the T34 to be shure though kinda courious how the lack of an AA MG is going to efect it, tanks are extreamly easy to kill from the air, and a T34 will be realy easy given it's lack of AA defense.
-
I don't know brady, if that penetration data is accurate the T-34/76 has a useless popgun compared to the Panzer IV H. The Panzer's gun is better at a 30° impact than the T-34's is at a 90° impact. That's pretty pathetic.
Looks to me like the Panzer will kill the T-34 much easier than the T-34 will kill the Panzer. The T-34 will be a perk earning tank I think.
It does have a very marked speed advantage though.
-
The T34 should be able to acheave a kill agasnt the turet on the Panzer from just about any angle and has a decent chance aganst the hull at what is likely to be most of the combat ranges in AH, any side or rear hits from the T34 should kill the Panzer IVH.
The Panzer IVH Given the sloping of the Hull front of the T34 is going to have about as hard a time pentrating the front as the T34 is of the Panzer IVH. The rest of the areras is realy comperable to the comparasions above.
I wounder if the Optics model will be adreased in these tanks, indead in all the tanks be nice to see some historic sights.
-
Hmmm.
The data I posted seems to say that the Panzer will have no trouble penetrating the T-34 at 1500m and the T-34 needs to get within 400m to have a chance at the Panzer.
-
I'll be in a T-34 I think... you want to know the reason? Top speed of 34 mph vs a top speed of 25.
Plus it has more armor and a lower profile, doesn't it?
-
daaaaaaaaaamn
i cant wait to get in a tank match:D
-
Lower , faster, true periscope sight, fording depth 1.27metres (shore lines)
and
how about a load out option to the OT - 34 with the ATO-42 flame thrower (20 shots at 100/120 metres range) instead of the silly 7.62mm hull gun.
No good at firing down off ridges though (gun depression only 3 degrees)
100 rounds in the 43 model
Max effective range 1.5 miles (presumably when considering HE agin buildings)
I reckon the 43 model gives the comanders cupula for better vision out the top turret.
-
Urchin,
It looks like the profiles are very similar. The T-34 has more turret armor and deck armor, but way, way less hull armor.
Panzer IV Hs are going to eat these for lunch if those stats are correct. Taking a T-34/76 angainst the Panzer IV H will feel like taking a Panzer IV H against a Tiger I.
-
Karnak, that penetration value looks a bit suspect. The T-34's BR-350P penetration is usually given at 92mm @ 500m. Of course, there's always the matter of how penetration is defined in a particular data spec.
-
I think it will match up with the IV very well. Don't discount the sloped armor when looking at the specs. The T-34/85 would eat up the IV so that will probably roll out when we do the Panther.
-
Karnak I think bud your exagerating it a bit, Realy I beelave the two to be fairly well matched, though Historicaly the Germans had better sights, I dont think we will see this in AH, unless Pyro wants to spend the time on it.
-
Thanks Pyro. I'll wait and see.
Honestly I was a quite unsure of the numbers I posted and was waiting for somebody to post corrected numbers to show me how silly I was being.
As to the aircraft, the extra 8mm of deck armor over the Panzer IV H's 12mm deck armor will probably be of great help in the T-34's survival against aircraft.
-
Also, dont discount a tank's coaxial gun as a defensive weapon against planes. If you have the time to swing the turret around, and the plane is at a low enough angle, you may be able to hose him a little.
Atleast, it works with the Panzer, the few times I drive it
-
It has a much less effective HE shell. About 60%.
The T34 has 70mm of equivilent frontal hull armour. Not even including the superior quality of the german steel.
The Panzer IV has 90 mm equivelent.
The T34 penetrates 71mm at 500 meters
The Panzer IV penetrates 114 at 500 meters. 85mm at 1000 meters.64mm at 2000m....
if they model them correctly it will not be fun to fight Panzer IVHs in T34-76s.
No AAMG
Not to mention. Way slower rate of fire because it has a 2 man turrent crew. The comander is the loader. The only reasonable way to model that would be to limit the rate of fire to 1 per minute if the comanders position is used. T34-76s where fought buttoned up.
The T34-85 is equivilent to the late model Panzer IV.
Sure the 76 model and the Panzer IV can kill each other. But the advantage is much to the favour of the Panzer.
-
Screw the Panzers, us Tiger junkies gunna have good eatin :D :D :D
-
Guys, I can't wait to play in Russian theater type Main Arena... :) (Of course winter version)
-
One of My favorate T 34 picks:
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421452564/0.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I think it will match up with the IV very well. Don't discount the sloped armor when looking at the specs. The T-34/85 would eat up the IV so that will probably roll out when we do the Panther.
We need the Shermie, baybee. NEED the Shermie .... baybee. :D
-
Read somewhere that the Soviets and Germans used different systems of determining penetration values for their cannon.
Not sure how much it would pertain to AH2, but here is one link I found on the subject:
http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_4.html
Midway down the page is an brief explanation as to why Soviet penetration values appeared to be lower than their German counterparts.
-
Why T-34 was one of the best Tanks of WW2
[list=1]
- Armor - the placement of armor was very good - the high angles had given very good defence against enemy canon rounds.
- Small Turret - reduced chances to kill it.
- The russion armor was better then german one - the russian armor of same size was stronger then same of germans. Germans had no good armor technologies as russian had. That was very important factor - one of the reasons germans had lost lots of Tigers at Kursk.
- Speed - very important factor.
The T-34 were used long period after WW2. Even germans had used captured T-34 widly - they knew well the perfomances of this tank.
I don't know how the tank will be modeled in AH but historicaly it was very good tank.
I don't know wich one 76 or 85 model but they also could deal with Tigers. And germans were very surprised by their abilities agains Tigers.
-
(http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4407Tali-Ihantala.jpg)
The most famous military photo ever in Finland. Photographed July 1944 during
the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Destroyed tank in photo is Soviet T-34, known amongst
Finnish soldiers as "Sotka". This photo is a sort of "Symbol of All Finnish
Defence Victories"
-
Pyro how will you guys model the T34/76 two man turret and its limitations?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Panzer IV H
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM
Maximum speed: 23.6mph
Cross Country: 9.9mph
Turning Radius: 19.42ft
Ground Pressure: 12.658lbs/in²
Weight: 50,000lbs?
Length w/gun: 23ft 3in
Height: 8ft 9.5in
Width: 9ft 5in
ARMOR
Hull Front, Upper: 80mm@12°
Hull Front, Lower: 80mm@14°
Hull Sides, Upper: 30mm@0°
Hull Sides, Lower: 30mm@0°
Hull Rear: 20mm@8° & 11°
Hull Top: 12mm@85°-90°
Hull Bottom: 10mm@90°
Turret Front: 50mm@10°
Turret Sides: 30mm@26°
Turret Rear: 30mm@15°
Turret Top: 14mm@84°-90°
MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 75mm KwK 40 L/48
Muzzle Velocity, PzGr 40: 3,248ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 30°, PzGr 40: 143mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 30°, PzGr 40: 120mm
Armor Penetration at 1000m, 30°, PzGr 40: 97mm
Armor Penetration at 1500m, 30°, PzGr 40: 77mm
T-34/76 (43)
Engine: W-2-34
Maximum speed: 34mph
Cross Country: 25mph
Turning Radius: 25.3ft
Ground Pressure: 10.24lbs/in²
Weight: 68,122lbs
Length w/gun: 22ft 1in
Height: 8ft 8in
Width: 9ft 7in
ARMOR
Hull Front, Upper: 47mm@60°
Hull Front, Lower: 45mm
Hull Sides, Upper: 40-45mm
Hull Sides, Lower: 45mm
Hull Rear: 45mm
Hull Top: 20mm
Hull Bottom: 15-20mm
Turret Front: 70mm
Turret Sides: 52mm
Turret Rear: 52mm
Turret Top: 16mm
MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2
Muzzle Velocity, BR-350P: 3,166ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 90°, BR-350P: 92mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 90°, BR-350P: 60mm
Note: Tanks are not my area and all data has been taken from the all knowing Internet, and we all know how reliable that is. Armor sloping is given if I found data for it, if it lacks data it does not mean that it is flat 90°.
If you don't me asking Karnak where did you get your info?
-
Not sure where you get your armor info from artik, but the German armor was as good or better quality than the Russian armor was. The Germans losing Tigers at Kursk had nothing to do with "low quality armor". I have never read this before in any book I have ever seen on the subject.
As for the T-34/76 and the MkIVH series they are an interesting comparison. The MkIVH has the better gun, a 5 man crew and good radios (that was important), but the T-34/76 did what the Russians needed: a good uncomplicated design will an adequate gun and good armor protection for its weight, low ground pressure for operating in the snow, and it was reliable and easy to operate with new crews. They both did what their respective countries needed of them.
As a fighting vehicle the MkIVH is the more advanced in terms of its tactical abilities (esp with a veteran crew), but the T-34/76 is close enough, and the Russians built them in the 1000's, as did the Allies with the Sherman design.
-
All this data and input is great!
Panzer IV H
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM
Maximum speed: 23.6mph
Cross Country: 9.9mph
Turning Radius: 19.42ft
Ground Pressure: 12.658lbs/in²
Weight: 50,000lbs?
Length w/gun: 23ft 3in
Height: 8ft 9.5in
Width: 9ft 5in
ARMOR
Hull Front, Upper: 80mm@12°
Hull Front, Lower: 80mm@14°
Hull Sides, Upper: 30mm@0°
Hull Sides, Lower: 30mm@0°
Hull Rear: 20mm@8° & 11°
Hull Top: 12mm@85°-90°
Hull Bottom: 10mm@90°
Turret Front: 50mm@10°
Turret Sides: 30mm@26°
Turret Rear: 30mm@15°
Turret Top: 14mm@84°-90°
MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 75mm KwK 40 L/48
Muzzle Velocity, PzGr 40: 3,248ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 30°, PzGr 40: 143mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 30°, PzGr 40: 120mm
Armor Penetration at 1000m, 30°, PzGr 40: 97mm
Armor Penetration at 1500m, 30°, PzGr 40: 77mm
T-34/76 (43)
Engine: W-2-34
Maximum speed: 34mph
Cross Country: 25mph
Turning Radius: 25.3ft
Ground Pressure: 10.24lbs/in²
Weight: 68,122lbs
Length w/gun: 22ft 1in
Height: 8ft 8in
Width: 9ft 7in
ARMOR
Hull Front, Upper: 47mm@60°
Hull Front, Lower: 45mm
Hull Sides, Upper: 40-45mm
Hull Sides, Lower: 45mm
Hull Rear: 45mm
Hull Top: 20mm
Hull Bottom: 15-20mm
Turret Front: 70mm
Turret Sides: 52mm
Turret Rear: 52mm
Turret Top: 16mm
MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2
Muzzle Velocity, BR-350P: 3,166ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 90°, BR-350P: 92mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 90°, BR-350P: 60mm
Armor - the placement of armor was very good - the high angles had given very good defence against enemy canon rounds.
Small Turret - reduced chances to kill it.
The russion armor was better then german one - the russian armor of same size was stronger then same of germans. Germans had no good armor technologies as russian had. That was very important factor - one of the reasons germans had lost lots of Tigers at Kursk.
Speed - very important factor.
It has a much less effective HE shell. About 60%.
The T34 has 70mm of equivilent frontal hull armour. Not even including the superior quality of the german steel.
The Panzer IV has 90 mm equivelent.
The T34 penetrates 71mm at 500 meters
The Panzer IV penetrates 114 at 500 meters. 85mm at 1000 meters.64mm at 2000m....
if they model them correctly it will not be fun to fight Panzer IVHs in T34-76s.
No AAMG
Not to mention. Way slower rate of fire because it has a 2 man turrent crew. The comander is the loader. The only reasonable way to model that would be to limit the rate of fire to 1 per minute if the comanders position is used. T34-76s where fought buttoned up.
The T34-85 is equivilent to the late model Panzer IV.
Sure the 76 model and the Panzer IV can kill each other. But the advantage is much to the favour of the Panzer.
BUT, it's all just about useless if the GV's arn't modeled and damage modeled correctly
-
"MAIN ARMAMENT
Gun: 76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2
Muzzle Velocity, BR-350P: 3,166ft/sec
Armor Penetration at 100m, 90°, BR-350P: 92mm
Armor Penetration at 500m, 90°, BR-350P: 60mm"
My copy of "The T34 Russian Battle Tank" by Hughes and Mann, MBI Publishing, gives the penetration for the BR-350P as 92 mm at 500m, not 100m. It mentions the BR-350P round was specifically introduced in response to the Panzer IV H in the spring of '43. The T34 should be a worthy adversary for the Panzer IV H, as it was in real life, if we get this round. The book lists the penetration of the previous round, the BR-350A as 69mm at 500m.
715
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The T34 has 70mm of equivilent frontal hull armour.
The Panzer IV has 90 mm equivelent.
47mm@60° is equivilent to 94 mm@90°, not 70mm.
-
the sloping armour makes all the difference.. what ever the raw stats say it dosn't take into accoutn how much of a difference the sloping armour makes..
i watched a tv programme a few weeks ago on this subject and it is amazing how much the S/A deflectc the shells as they come in..
on a different point, didnt the t34 have a hand cranked turret?
will the wide tracks of the t34 be an advantage over the tiger/panzer.ie will the terrain be fixed to allow this major design advantage to be used..
-
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.
-
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.
:D
-
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. :aok
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
The fact that everybody and his brother begins the teardown of the AH models long before the introduction of the vehicle.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The T34 supposedly did not have as good a HE round as the PzIv - so it might not be as gooa a town killer.
-
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
;)
-
Originally posted by storch
Let's not even discuss the
Good idea.
-Sik
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Good idea.
-Sik
pfft allied flyers :D
-
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.
-
Or perhaps they will simply not give it a commander's cupola position.
They could also heavily reduce the RoF to simulate the loader's difficulties.
Those two things would help a lot. At that point the T-34/76 would have some major disadvantages, but would probably earn good GV perks.
-
Good post Pongo.
-
Originally posted by storch
pfft allied flyers :D
At least I have the sense to fly an evil commie plane. :)
-Sik
-
Pongo is right on track, the T-34 76 by 43 was a death trap.
It gained its good rep when it faced the early war Panzer 3 and 4 with low velocity guns.
The T34 85 was better but still not as good as the Panther or Tiger.
-
I believe the T34-43 model did have a comanders cupula..........
The lack of the 3rd position in the main turret was certainly inhibitive............
Actually to me it is already modelled on the MkIV and the Tiger.......
When in the main gun position the field of view is highly restricted and I am often flicking (ineffeciently) between turret and cupula.......... (there is no GV F3 in the MA set up).
The commander would be better represented by some sort of info re the out side world when in the main gun sight.............
Possibly being able to see enemy icons ( at 3000 yards) thru the hull when in the main gun?
In summary
Leave the T34 as the others are now and you are the comander/gunner torn between two jobs. Add SA type info to the gunner position and he has a commander directing his fire.
-
Being able to fly back and forth between an outside view using your top hat to quickly scann 360 degrees. and climbing in and out of the tank to be able to see arround are totaly different things. The net effect of the current game is far better SA then a real tank crew had. You can open your top hatch without effect on the survivablity of the vehicle...that isnt realistic at all. Giving the T34-76 that kind of ability is a fantastic departure from the real capabilities the vehicle had..as a direct result of its great balistic shape..big gun and low cost. You cant have everything. Letting the T34-76 off without paying the price for the decisions of the designers really is a bad idea.
Put in the T34-85. It fits way better in the game and should not be a fast tiger or anything like that. Properly modeld the Panzer IV will have it hands full with a T34-85..but it should be a good fight. The T34-76 shouldnt even be a good fight if its modeled properly
-
So, did the T34's do horribly vs the Germans....?
Pongo, you threw in a good bone of T34's problems in the real life.
Now compare those to the merits of the T34, such as being able to move around very wildly in rough terrain, i.e. two or three times the Speed of a Panzer....
Or going where there were no Panzers..
On a plate-flat battlefield with 100% visibility, the Panzer from AH will outshoot the T34 we are about to get.
OK
Under any more troubled cirkumstances the T34 will be a serious enemy of the Panzer. It is very much faster, roughy equally hard to hit, and can easily kill a Panzer in 1 shot if it gets near enough.
And there will be lots of them
:D
-
Are we willing to have 4 or 5 to 1 kill to death vs the Panzer IVH? That is what the real life performance was like.
The intial listing of the speeds of these vehicles is incorrect.
Their listed cross country speeds are 25 km/h for the T34-76 and 20km/h for the Panzer IV. The suspensions of the two vehicles probably made up the difference in what they could maintain.
-
Never dug deep into that data, just quoted from Karnak.
The Anecdotal stuff I've read however all gives the impression that the T34 was a very fast cross-country tank.
-
It had great ground preasure for that time. Great gradiant climb perfomance from what I understand(could be important in AH) and good speed but a very poor performing suspension. That makes it bouncy and rough. important considerations when your forced to fight the vehicle through view ports instead of with the comander peeking out his cupola
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Karnak, that penetration value looks a bit suspect. The T-34's BR-350P penetration is usually given at 92mm @ 500m. Of course, there's always the matter of how penetration is defined in a particular data spec.
That penetration value would be Tungsten ammunition (APCR) at 0dgr deflection angle. Penetration for APBC from same range would be 70-75mm
btw with APCR ammo PzIV could penetrate 154mm from 500m and 97mm from 1500m, 0dgr deflection.
Source:
Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston: "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery".
-
Come on people, the bottom line is allied armor no matter if it was the T34 or M4's was no match for German armor. All the allies could do was flood the battle field with medium tanks and hope to win with sheer numbers. If you want to add a tank that will make a real difference in game play then add a Panther G model, was fast, heavily armored and carried a high velocity cannon. The T34's and M4's were used as cannon fodder. Mass numbers not quality was the name of the game back then. Since I got started here there is another subject to be had also and that is all the german machine guns are downgraded here so, their crap now. The pintle gun on a tiger was usually a MG42 which was the most feared machine gun of WW2. Check out the ballistics on the 7.9mm compared to the .30 cal or 30.06 of that time. You could upgrade the .50 cal to where it should be if you gave the pintle gun the power it desrves. just remember this is just my oppion no matter how blurred it may seem.
BALlistic SURgeon
-
Nope the Tiger 1 did not have an MG42 as an AA MG. It had an MG34. The two guns have the same balistics as they fire the same round - the MG42 has a higer rate of fire..
-
I have seen pictures of mg42 pintle mounts, but the mg34 seems to have been far more common.
I dont know about the balisitcs..but they certainly could give the pintle mount its abiltiy to shoot 360 degrees. And have it start out in the forward postition when you man it.
-
BALSUR,
I think you udersell the T-34/85 and IS-2. While not as good as the Panther V G or Tiger I a good case can be made for them being better than any other German tank and certainly better than any western Allied tank that was built and used in significant quantity.
What do you mean about "upgrading the 50 cal to where it should be"?
-
There were MG42 pintle mounts on various vehicles.
But I have not seen them on Tiger 1.
-
Stalin 2 was good for what is was designed to do, break through heavy fortified infanty/PAK positions.
It wasnt too great tank vs tank due to low rate of fire, but its heavy armor was a great feature.
-
I think with the T34-85, Is2m combination the Russians didnt have to take second place to anyone. Very distinctive and cool tanks. Powerful and fully developed.
Are they the equal to the Panther- Tiger II combination..No but they cost less then a third as much.
The Is2m can ignore the Panther and Tiger 1 frontaly. That is increadble. with ammo crates arround it and its 12.7mm on the roof the is2m is a tank that definatly has to be brought to Aces High.
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_54.jpg)
-
Pongo,
You mean IS2M, right? Iosef Stalin 2M.
Il2M is the attack aircraft.
-
That is made obvious by the context and the picture karnak.. :)
-
Actually GRUN, I'm really not that sure in my knowledge of tanks. For all I knew there was also a Russian tank labeled Il2m.
-
Rudolph Salvermoser, A Großdeutschland Veteran (http://www.feldgrau.com/interview6.html)
Here's an account of Rudi's first contact with an IS2.
Rudi post's over oon the Feldgrau forums. Here's a link to his profile:
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=408
Feldgrau Forum
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/index.php
My fourth and final wound occurred on August 8, 1944 on a beautiful summer day about two miles south of Raseinen, Lithuania. Our tank was detailed to investigate, as the lead tank of the Company, the activities of the Russians in the vicinity of Raseinen. As we pulled up behind some bushes on a hill, I spotted a Russian T-34 tank diagonally crossing the valley in front of us. I had fired my first shot at the Russian tank when, at that instant, I sensed a shiny object approach our tank at a tremendous speed from the direction of eleven o'clock. Describing the event takes time, but this was an instantaneous occurrence. All I knew that danger was approaching and before I could shout, "Aufpassen!" (watch out!), there was a bright flash and then nothing - no sound no following explosion. I subconsciously crawled out of the tank. I regained consciousness when kneeling on the ground behind the tank. I saw my driver, also kneeling, in front of me. "What happened?", I asked him and he replied, "We got hit!" When I asked him where the other members of our crew were he replied, "They are dead." As the tank engine finally sputtered and died, I heard a moaning and told the driver, "I think one of them is alive, let's help." As we both leapt up onto the rear of the tank, we found the loader alive but he had a gun in his hand and was preparing to shoot himself. This was often the reaction of a tank crew member who, when his tank was hit and he seemed unable to exit the vehicle, he preferred to commit suicide rather than go through the agony of slowly burning to death or to be captured by the Russians. I immediately knocked the weapon out of his hand and told the driver, "Help me pull him out." We tried but found that we could not budge him for there was considerable debris throughout the tank's interior which had his legs trapped. At that moment, we heard our commander begin to moan. We moved over to the left side of the tank where we found him as securely caught in the wreckage as the loader. At that moment, Russian machine gun fire began strafing our disabled vehicle so, following our trained reactions, we jumped off the tank and went behind it. Following this, my eyesight was getting progressively worse, so I asked the driver, "Do you see anything?" - meaning, "Can You still see?" He obviously thought that I was asking him if he saw any Russians for he replied, "No." Well, I concluded, in that case I better go back for help, but when I informed of my intentions he said, "You look like a mess, your arms and face!" It was only then that I realized that I was indeed wounded. Both of my arms were burned - the right one so severely that the skin was rolling up. My shirt was completely burned off on the right hand side, and when I touched my face and head, all I could feel was a gooey mess. Moreover, my hair was totally burned away and blood poured over my face. Considering the extent of my injuries, it was incredible that someone had to tell me that I was wounded before I realized that I was injured! With comprehension came pain and I found that the only way I could relieve the excruciating condition of my arms was to raise them above me. It was like this that I stumbled my way back down the hill, barely able to see the track marks our tank made in the grass, to the gravel pit where help and safety awaited. By this time, all that I could see was a milky blur in front of my eyes, and a voice called out, "who is that?" "Rudi, from Tank 541!", I replied. "Oh, my gosh," he exclaimed, "is anybody else alive?" "Yes," I answered, "the other three are hurt, but we can't get them out and they need help." "Alright," he said, "we are getting help for them!" My sight, by this time, was almost completely gone, so I called out, "I am blind!" "You just stand there, help is coming," he replied. I was told later that one of the tanks broke away from the battle formation and towed my tank and crew back to safety. I went into unconsciousness for all I remember was that someone was speaking to me while I was lying on a cot most likely on the ground. Whatever he was saying seemed to me incomprehensible. According to my Verwundetenkarte (a tag with medical and other information that accompanies the wounded soldier), I was given the Last Rites by the Chaplain. My loader's and my conditions were considered grave enough that they had given us up as beyond help and, expecting us two to die shortly, they left us in the Field Hospital rather then ship us back to Germany. After about two weeks during which time I was still unconscious, my health began to improve and I recall gaining consciousness just as I was being unloaded from the troop train in Dresden, Germany.
Before the battle that nearly took my life, we were informed of a new Russian tank, the Josef Stalin III, that weighed forty-six tons and fired 122 mm projectiles. Because of its thick (120 mm), sloping armor, our 75 mm rounds would simply bounce off its skin unless we hit it from the side at a very close range. When I fired at the T-34 in the valley, I wasn't aware that there were a number of those monsters waiting two kilometers away at the edge of the forest. No sooner had I pulled the trigger than the Russian behemoth began firing. For once, the Russians struck our tank with their first round. The projectile hit our vehicle between the barrel and the barrel sleeve of our cannon. It tore our cannon off where it struck and, incredibly, entered the exposed chamber where it detonated, causing our loaded round to detonate as well. This tremendous explosion caused our waiting rounds, though not the magazine, to instantly explode as well. Eyewitnesses stated that our welded assault gun's armored roof was propelled from its position by a sheet of flame that rose about 100 meters into the air. I am sure this must have been an exaggeration, the force necessary to wrench that massive steel roof away from our tank and fling it through the air had to be considerable. Apparently, my training in mounting and dismounting in Bamberg as well as in Rastenburg paid off for I must have subconsciously crawled off the tank and sought cover behind it. Since our assault gun was totally destroyed and our crew miraculously lived through the ordeal, it became known as the "Miracle Tank of the Eastern Front." Our driver, who had survived the incident relatively unscathed, would not talk for five days. He had withdrawn into a world all his own, so I was told. He eventually snapped out of it and was assigned to drive another tank. On his first day back at the Front, he was driving his tank across a wooden bridge when it collapsed beneath him. Fortunately for the other crew members, they were sitting on the outside of the vehicle; but the driver was in his compartment at the front of the tank. When the tank crashed through the bridge it turned upside down and entered the water below. The only fatality was my driver, who drowned while trapped in the sunken wreckage.
For having been wounded four separate times, I received the Verwundeten Abzeichen in silver. This badge was issued to any soldier who suffered more than three wounds, or for the loss of a hand, foot, eye or complete deafness. Additionally, I was awarded the Panzerkampf Abzeichen (tank assault badge) for having participated in at least three successful tank engagements. This could also be awarded for tank action against antitank actions. The third and most prestigious decoration awarded to me was the Eisernes Kreuz II Klasse (Iron Cross Second Class). This medal was given for bravery beyond the call of duty and quite an honor if the recipient (such as I) was below the rank of Unteroffizier. I was recommended for the Iron Cross 1st Class, but was for some reason denied the honor. My awards, however, basically stemmed from my having destroyed a total of six Russian tanks - two of them on separate occasions and the other four in a single tank battle. The destruction of the last four occurred one day when approximately twenty Russian tanks attempted to breach our lines near Narva, Estonia. Somehow, I managed to smash all four in a matter of minutes, while another one of our tanks obliterated two in the same period of time. Meanwhile, our 88 mm antiaircraft/antitank battery succeeded in destroying four additional Russian tanks. Upon losing ten tanks out of their original compliment of twenty, the remaining Russians withdrew into the woods. There were other incidents, many of them leading up to the statement that I had described personal bravery and dedication to my comrades, that (combined) led to my receiving the award.
-
Was he in a Stug?
-
Sounds like it.
-
Hi everyone,
Just sharing some points here.
Armour effectiveness is usually considered to be:
thickness of plate / cosine angle of the projectile striking from the vertical x effectiveness factor
This effectiveness factor might vary from about 0.5 up to about 1.25 depending mainly on
quality, type (cast or rolled, FH or Homogeneous) projectile/armour thickness ratio.
During the WWII Russian armour varied in quality depending on when and where it was produced.
I understand prior to 1942 it was generally of a consistently good quality both rolled or cast.
However during 1942 and much of 1943 the pressure to produce quantity plus the disruption to production caused many variations in quality. The cast armour of which the USSR used exstensively was prone to flaws and inconsistencies during this time. This produced variable levels of protection from tank to tank.
1944 and 1944 saw an improvement of casting technique with improved protection and reliability.
Later T34/76s had improved turret designs to give better protection and more working room to the crew.
Also be aware the thickness of side armour on the T34 gives about twice the protection of the Pzkpfw IV.
German armour was of good consisent quality up until early or mid 1944.
Scarceness of vital elements forced manufacturers to used subsitutes which produced armour which could be prone to cracking when hit.
When discussing performance of ammunition it must be remembered what type it is.
Some of the penetration figures in previous posts are for specialised types using extremely hard but scarce tungsten carbide. T34s would count themselves fortunate to have any rounds of this type in 1942/43. I understand supply improved during 1944. Non tungsten Russian AP round also had the tendancy to shatter on impact with FH armour during 1942/43 as quality was inconsistant mirroring the situation with armour.
Pzkpfw IVH would probably not have any tungsten rounds at all, as 75mm APCR was discontinued in 1943 with only 50mm round still continuing to consume this important material for a time.
The T34 was more mobile the the IVH although in some versions its transmission was prone to failure.
The difference between the two when crossing hard ground would not be significant.
The result of all the above is that yes the Mk IVH should still have a reasonable edge on open ground.
However if ranges are able to be closed the result is in doubt. Russian crew training and optics did not promote engagement ranges much beyond 750m.
The main edge Germany had was in its level of crew training, although by mid 1944 attrition and some improvements ment
the Russians weren't far behind in this regard.
As you all know it is hard for game designers (or anybody else) to come up with accurate modelling data, or for a game to model the effects of all features or faults.
If I can be of help, please let me know. I have a German chart advising engagement ranges for the Tiger I vs T34, but being new here am not sure how to post it. I have a reasonable collection of data on most AFVs.
Regard
Brian
-
Would you agree then that the T34-85 has more parity with the Panzer IVH then the late model T34-76 does?
-
Originally posted by BALSUR
If you want to add a tank that will make a real difference in game play then add a Panther G model, was fast, heavily armored and carried a high velocity cannon.
The MA needs the Panther! The MA needs the PANTHER!
Ahem .... mmmriiiight. ;)
Panzer ... Tiger ... yup yup ... keep adding more uber German tanks.
The MA needs them!
:D
Shermie next baybee. MA don't need nuthin' until the sets for scenario matchups get their gaps plugged. :aok
-
BPNZ,
Do you have web space to save it on the internet?
If so you can use the following code to show images:
{img}http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/Ki84data.bmp{/img}
Replace the "{}" brackets with "[]" brackets to get it to work.
If you do not have web space I can post it for you if you send it to me at:
aaholaR3M0V3@klassyR3M0V3.com
Removed the red text for my real email address.
I agree with Arlo in the need for a Sherman before we get a Panther, Tiger II or IS-2.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I agree with Arlo in the need for a Sherman before we get a Panther, Tiger II or IS-2.
Bless you!
Doesn't matter if it's outclassed to me. A Western front Allied tank will go far to set up ground battle scenarios. The "Bulge" needs a Shermie.
Of course, now we're setting up well for Kursk.
I'd go so far as to suggest an allied medium or light tank and a Japanese tank for Pacific settings but that's not as dire as European mbts. Though tanks were certainly used in the Pacific, as well, most of the battles there involved fleet, air and infantry.
-
"Japanese tank" is almost an oxymoron if you aren't Chinese.
Japanese aircraft, ships and subs were all competitive to one degree or another. Japanese tanks were not. IIRC they had some just starting production at the end of the war that on paper were nearly as good as the Sherman.
The the Japanese did a number on our tanks with was anti-tank guns. They used them well enough to, for example, knock out every single tank we landed on Iwo Jima. At least that's what I've been told on this BBS.
-
sherman m4a3 75!!!
-
[QUOTE
The russion armor was better then german one - the russian armor of same size was stronger then same of germans. Germans had no good armor technologies as russian had. That was very important factor - one of the reasons germans had lost lots of Tigers at Kursk.
[/QUOTE]
Someone needs to read their history books better.... German armour was the best, and virtually all of the Tigers and Panthers lost at Kursk were do to problems with the Maybach engines.
Bazi
-
Here are BPNZ's images:
T-34 Chart:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/T34Chart.jpg)
Pz. Kpfw IV:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/PZIVHJ.jpg)
Pz. Kpfw IV:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/PZ4G.jpg)
Panther after being hit:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/pantherhit.jpg)
And a link he provided:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pantherfibel.htm
-
NICE
BTW, what was the finest allied tank gun?
Somewhere I read that is was a british one, can't remember the caliber, but they were used in on some converted Shermans I belive.
THAT 76mm?????????????
-
17pdr (cal 76mm) was used in Sherman Firefly and in British A30 Avenger and Challenger and Archer.
APCBC projectile penetrated 150mm from 1000m at 0dgr angle, almost identical performance with german KwK42 75L70 used in Panthers.
US tanks had different 76mm with less power than British 17pdr, penetrating bit over 100mm from 1000m with APCBC ammo.
US also used 90mm guns in tank killers like M36; gun was quite similar performance with 17pdr and KwK42 75L70
-
Sherman {and variations of} T34, Panther and many more are all great ideas, lets get the damage model, ballistic model and overall modeling done first.
Why is it that so many players choose the P51, LA7, Spit and N1K2 ?
Could you imagine flying one of those A/C and they all fly pretty much the same and do the same type of damage? Or they all fly just like the F4U ? I guarantee people would say "what's up with that" ?
My 2cents
-
Who flies N1K2's these days?
Well P51 is Amreeekkan and fast.
The Lala is faster low alt and has cannons.
The Spitty also has teeth and is very very nimble.
so????????????
-
Originally posted by Angus
Who flies N1K2's these days?
Well P51 is Amreeekkan and fast.
The Lala is faster low alt and has cannons.
The Spitty also has teeth and is very very nimble.
so????????????
Ok that being said, imagine what if all three flew the same, same speed, same turns, same "nimbleness", same damage effects. Seem normal to you?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Would you agree then that the T34-85 has more parity with the Panzer IVH then the late model T34-76 does?
I sure do.
T34-76 was in service when Barbarossa was launched.
Pzkw IV H is a 1943 model I believe.
T34-85 sounds like a closer match up for Pzkw IV H.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Ok that being said, imagine what if all three flew the same, same speed, same turns, same "nimbleness", same damage effects. Seem normal to you?
The Uberschturmhumptydoodle Mk 69 500 mm depleted uranium firing dual quad mega-dynamo electric long range gatling hovertank/super flak should most definately not fly like a Lala. It should fly like a Yak.
Shermie next baybee ....
-
Wow. After seeing that hit pic Karnak posted, now I realize that no matter how much your tank is hit if the penetration is a failure then its not worth much.
Perhaps "I've hit a X tank at Y ranges Z times and he didn't budge, but he hit me once and it killed me" complaints are wrong, just like HT said, after all.
Ofcourse the Panzer and Tiger have different levels of armour comapred to the Panther.. but it makes sense.
-
The Soviet 122 would pentatrate 120 mm at 2km I believe.
Or just use the he and flatten the enemy anyway.