Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: JB73 on October 11, 2004, 04:15:03 PM
-
just saying.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132509
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/t34.jpg)
-
Why do GV's not have markings?
-
it looks kinda plain to me they need to put the red star and some numbers on it
-
Nice work!
-
its a beauty!
Would it be possible to make the 85mm turret as a perked option?
Just asking HTC :)
-
The detail on that T-34 is a lot better than the older tanks. Very nice job there NATEDOG. It looks great.
Originally posted by Nilsen
Would it be possible to make the 85mm turret as a perked option?
If the T-34/85 gets perked (whenever it gets here), the Panzer IV H needs to be perked too.
-
Originally posted by TrueKill
it looks kinda plain to me they need to put the red star and some numbers on it
They were plain. About the only markings you ever see on them might be a number or slogan painted on by the crew. But in many photos, you'll see no markings whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
its a beauty!
Would it be possible to make the 85mm turret as a perked option?
Just asking HTC :)
I'm quite certain that we'll do a T-34/85, just not in this version. Probably roll that out at the same time as the Panther.
-
Will the driver-slit covers be able to be put on and off?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The detail on that T-34 is a lot better than the older tanks. Very nice job there NATEDOG. It looks great.
If the T-34/85 gets perked (whenever it gets here), the Panzer IV H needs to be perked too.
I don't see the comanders cupula added for the Model 1943.......
does this mean its an early Model 1943?
-
rgr pyro but it would alot better like this. btw yall ganna make the max speed on it 31 or 34mhp?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/505_1097531694_t_34_03.jpg)
-
Pyro,
A couple of questions.
1) Was the whole "4" thing planned? Ki-84 B-24 T-34
2) Does sloped armor have more than a linear effect? E.g., does a 45° slope effectively double the thickness of the armor, or does it do more?
Thanks.
-
Hey Pyro, have you ever considered an "unbottoned" / "botton up" key.
There used to be external views on GVs. Currently you can just page up and down and move in/out of the tank and then set views accordingly. You end up with a better visual picture with out the risk of being unbuttoned.
For instance while transit the driver and commander hatches could be opened, to fire the turret mg the hatch needs to be open etc..
It would seem to me that while buttoned up you should be at a visible disadvantage but at less risk.
-
lol yea karnak new one is P-39 B-29 T-19 oh god no B29 thats the last thing we need
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm quite certain that we'll do a T-34/85, just not in this version. Probably roll that out at the same time as the Panther.
Pssst .... you're forgetting the Shermie. The war in Europe had 2 fronts. ;)
Shermie, baybee .... then give the panzerlied club their 29 additional makes and models of German uber-clank. :D
-
OK Skinners get on it
(http://www.xenophongi.org/milhist/coorsarmor/rust34-3s.jpg)
Panther??
nice Tank but I would really lke to see more allied(American British) Armor as well
-
I must say that the T-34/76 is a much better looking tank than the Panzer IV H. The sloped armor just looks so much better on tanks.
-
i think he ment that panther and t-34/85 will come out later on cuz they need more smaller cal. tanks b4 they get into the super tanks
-
Originally posted by TrueKill
it looks kinda plain to me they need to put the red star and some numbers on it
Looks good but is missing "something"
Perhaps its just too clean. Needs some mud spatters or something
-
pyro just told me next 2 tanks are the Maus with the 128mm gun and the M29 with the 90mm pfff i wish
-
Neh ... obviously the uberschturmhumptydoodle Mk69 500mm depleted uranium firing hovertank with dual quad electric gatlings for air defense that the spacebats built for Germany in the last year of the war. :lol
-
Arlo,
I'd bet the next tank is a Sherman of some sort.
American, not British.
-
Hope you're right, Karnak. It makes sense, no?
How are we gonna fight the Battle of the Bulge with Soviet tanks? Patton would rise up from the grave and march down to HTC's offices with his pearl handled revolvers in hand. :D
-
Looks very very good. Very high resolution. Maybe the tracks could use a little better skin to give them some depth.
I think that is what 90% of surviving photos of war time T34s look like. Plane green like that.
Karnak. there are certian angles where the Late panzer IV with skirts looks pretty good. But there is no angle where it looks as good as a T34-76. and the T34-85 makes it look down right ugly.
The Germans really redeemed themselves with the Panther though.
-
T34 is actually a rather clumsy design... So is the PzIV.. The panzer III looks a lot better.
-
PANTHER!
-
Hmmm.
To me the Panzer III looks primitive.
The T-34/85, Panther V G and Tiger II are the best looking WWII tanks in my opinion.
There is something visceral about the Tiger I, but it doesn't look very modern. Flat 90° armor like the Panzer III, Panzer IV and Tiger I have just doesn't look good on tanks.
-
woot! Nice work Nate!
Ditto Sunking...
PANTHER!!!
-
By the way, with the new moving parts inside the cockpit of the Ki84 and all, will we see this carry over to the external tracks/wheels of the T34? Would be neat to see some circular movement instead of the gumby-style sliding we have now :D
-
i feel like driving them around the same city block over and over, to give the impression of having lots, already.
-
Is it me, or does the one photo of the T-34 seem to show a gigantic shot trap underneath the gun? Looks like the rounds would ricochet off the bottom of the rounded part and go right into the roof.
-
wont the pnsr still blow holes in this? isnt this more of a match up for an M8?
i hope its fast or it will be used little.
cant wait to try it!
bat
-
Are the photos pictured the same tank as the one nate built?
Cause they dont look the same to me. The front of the turret where the gun is. It is very different between photos and nates art.
-
Originally posted by mechanic
wont the pnsr still blow holes in this? isnt this more of a match up for an M8?
I think that the Panzer has the edge on this, by quite a lot if it's historical limitations are modeled.
Ironically though, I think the M8 is more likely to beat a Panzer IV H than a T-34/76 due to the T-34's thicker rear and turret armor.
icemaw,
The first photo is a T-34/76, but with a different turret design. The second photo is a T-34/85.
-
I like it, thanks Pyro.
-
Tank you NATEDOG!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Is it me, or does the one photo of the T-34 seem to show a gigantic shot trap underneath the gun? Looks like the rounds would ricochet off the bottom of the rounded part and go right into the roof.
The whole front of the T34 is a giant shot trap. It really defeats much of its sloped armor..
Look at those tow hook mounts, hit one of those and you will cut right through the armor.
Same goes for the base of the hull MG..
And of course with the huge drivers door and vision ports.
Also just like you said the shots will ricochet off the glacis and into the turret.
Also there is a vertical armor area at the turret ring thats also rather vulnerable...
As effective as it was the T34 was really a rathther crappy design. The suspension was awful, inside was crowded, the transmission was terrible, the two man turret layout and lack of a turret basket was horrible, the ammo stowage was even worse, on and on and on. I guess the design's capasbility was cut in half or more because of these blunders...
-
Very nice, especially the wheels, but ... is it just me or does the turret look wrong?
-
yea the turret is the wrong shape
-
The turret looks fine to me. You need to elaborate about what you think is wrong with it. If you're comparing it to the photos above, you're comparing different things. One of the photos is a T-34/85 and the other shows an earlier production turret.
-
These?
(http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/pictures/T34-G2.jpg)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/5/56/T-34_76_Westerplatte_p_d.jpg)
(http://www.strategie.com.pl/teksty/zbrojownia/ladowe/ladowe/tank/t34.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/t34.jpg)
(http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps231007/23100716.jpg)
http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps231007/ps231007.html (http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps231007/ps231007.html)
main page (http://www.andreaslarka.net/)
-
Germans seem to have liked this tank well enough to steal a few by the above photos. Nice work on the tank, looks like photos in above message.
As for skins, some of you are still unaware that you can make and submit your own custom skins I guess?
-
BTW could that periscope twist?
-
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°.
I was looking at the older tank models in AH last night. The detail on the T-34's wheels is astronomically better. So far as I can tell, that is the single biggest graphical change from AH1 on a unit at this point.
Zanth,
The top photo is a German used T-34/76 it seems, but the bottom photo is a Finnish used T-34/76 and the Finns took any equipment they could. Fighting a modern industrial superpower with a small rural nation required that if they were to survive.
-
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.
-
wonder if it will be perked?
-
Originally posted by 68DevilM
wonder if it will be perked?
Why would it be perked? The Panzer IV H is more potent, if slower.
-
just wondering
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Zanth,
Very true.
I doubt it will change soon though.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
It should just be accepted that bullet traps and other issues of the T34s armour are irrelivent vs the Pak 40s and better. It isnt well armoured and the Panzer IV can kill it frontaly with out such assistance.
vs the Panther such discussions are relevent. As it is invulnerable frotally to most allied anti tank guns. So you need to talk about shot traps etc. By 1944, such discusions concerning the T34 series are pretty irrelivent unless your in a 75mm Sherman or a 50mm Panzer III or a 57mm Cromwell or another T34-76. Any properly armed 1944 tank will take out any normal armoured version of the T34 quite easily.
Panthers will kill them at 3km.
-
I really would like to see the ground war fleshed out a little more. For instance, Panzer III, Sherman (early and late models), the KV (I think) series Russian tanks, the British tanks (don't know much about them.. Matilda and some lighter model fought the Panzer III and IV in North Africa), maybe a couple tank destroyer models (the StuG III comes to mind).
On the other hand... I'd like to see the early war air stuff fleshed out too, so I guess I want my cake and eat it too :).
-
The Churchill Mk. IV was a very good British tank. I'd really like to see it in AHII.
-
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/pics/t3443.jpg)
Seems we have the welded turret.........
-
I don't think it matters if it is cast or welded. I think AH models armor based on thickness, angle of impact of the shell and the energy of the shell.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
It should just be accepted that bullet traps and other issues of the T34s armour are irrelivent vs the Pak 40s and better. It isnt well armoured and the Panzer IV can kill it frontaly with out such assistance.
vs the Panther such discussions are relevent. As it is invulnerable frotally to most allied anti tank guns. So you need to talk about shot traps etc. By 1944, such discusions concerning the T34 series are pretty irrelivent unless your in a 75mm Sherman or a 50mm Panzer III or a 57mm Cromwell or another T34-76. Any properly armed 1944 tank will take out any normal armoured version of the T34 quite easily.
Panthers will kill them at 3km.
I think in AH2 with our curious bounce hit model that has bounces from vertical 80mm plate at 40yards you will have 75/L48 AP rounds bouncing off that sloped T34 glacis like mad..
:(
Oh and Tilt I think thats actually a cast turret.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm quite certain that we'll do a T-34/85, just not in this version. Probably roll that out at the same time as the Panther.
PANTHER!! YOU CAN TELL US WE GET A PANTHER BUT NOT THE RELEASE DATE OF 2.01 !!!:(
-
Geeze ... the boner you guys have for the Panther and all. Why not just cut to the chase and demand that uberschturmhumptydoodle Mk 69? After all ... modeling stuff to fill in country gaps for historical and scenario match-ups don't mean squat when it comes to better, faster, tougher, harder shooting toys for the MA. ;)
-
It's been a very slow day at work so I've been browsing T-34 data on the internet.
It seems to me that we're probably underselling the gun on the T-34/76. The difference in the way German and Russian tests measure penetration makes the paper numbers of the 76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2 seem less than they were when compared to the paper numbers of the German guns.
While I know Russian sources can be, um, biased, here is a quote from V. A. Malyshev in 1943:
"Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76mm tank guns could destroy "Tigers" and "Panthers" at distances of only 500-600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometer and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometer. A more powerful gun needs to be put in the T-34 quickly."
Looking at the data is seems that the T-34/76 (43) is not so different from a T-34/76 in 1941 or 1942 and so is quite usable in scenarios for those years. In 1941 and 1942 it would be a very formidable tank, but to reflect this we need a Panzer IV D.
Against the Panzer IV H the T-34/76 will be at a disadvantage, but less so, I think, than the M4A3 (75mm) Sherman. The front armor is only 47mm thick, but it is at an impressive 60° angle from vertical, which gives a straight on impact angle of only 30°. Any angle added from a shot not coming from directly ahead of the tank only adds to this. This will only be of marginal use against the the powerful 75mm KwK 40 L/48 gun on the Panzer IV H, it will be significantly better against future tanks from earlier periods or the 75mm M3 L/40 on the M4A3 Sherman.
The slope of the rear armor and the thicker rear hull and rear turret armor will probably make the T-34/76 indisquishable from the Tiger I when looked at from an M8's perspective. The M8 relies on punching out the Panzer IV H's turret from the rear and then repeated blows to the rear and side hull to kill it. It is likely that these hits will have no effect on the T-34/76.
The 20mm of deck armor will probably make the T-34/76 unkillable by aircraft guns other than the Il-2's 23mm and Hurrican Mk IID's 40mm cannons. Future additions such as the Ju-87G and Hs129 will also be capable of knocking it out with guns. All American aircraft however will rely on bombs and rockets. All current German and Japanese aircraft will need to rely on bombs, only the Hs129, Ju87G and Ki-102 really offering a chance of changing that.
As to the particular model we're getting, I'd say it is a T-34/76D with a welded turret and no commander's cupola. There seem to have been only 100 T-34/76Fs with the cast turret and no commander's cuppola produced before all production shifted to the T-34/85.
Here's a quick rundown on T-34/76 variants:
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.
-
Sherman .. then Panzer IV D. I can live with that. Everyone in the MA can be distracted by playing with the T-34 for awhile.
-
Arlo,
I, for one, am really looking forward to playing with the T-34/76. While true that I would prefer a T-34/85, I really like the T-34/76 too.
Panthers are super tanks by WWII standards. I'm sure we'll see it sometime, but I'd like to see the M4A3 (75mm) Sherman and Panzer IV D next. After those then maybe a Panther V G, T-34/85, M4A3 (76mm) Sherman or Sherman Firefly Vc. First lets get the core combat tanks of WWII first though.
Frankly I'd rather see a Panther V A or Panther V D when it is added rather than the ultimate Panther V G. The V A or V D would be far more useful for scenarios than the V G.
M4A3 (75mm) Sherman and Panzer IV D please.:D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Arlo,
I, for one, am really looking forward to playing with the T-34/76. While true that I would prefer a T-34/85, I really like the T-34/76 too.
(snip)
M4A3 (75mm) Sherman and Panzer IV D please.:D
Oh ... I never said I wouldn't be hopping in it and giving it a spin, myself. I'm just saying that it should at least provide a temporary distraction for the "model more uber next and more uber than that next and even more uberer than that next" crowd. That's not the schedule that appeals to me. I'm thinking you and I are on the same relative wavelength when it comes to a logical progression of addition. :)
-
Well, I think the T-34/76 fits in nicely with the "model the non-ubėr stuff first" mentality. Think of the T-34/76 as the Russian equivilent of the M4A3 (75mm) Sherman. It isn't that good, but it is good enough to see some use in the MA and lots of use in scenarios.
I think people who are looking for the next ubėrtank will jump in it and then right back into the Panzer IV H when they find that the T-34 only really offers a higher top speed at the cost of being very vulnerable to the Panzer IV H.
-
B-24 interior is completed?
is new version really close to release?
-
A Panzer IV H firing at a T-34/76's front with a horizontal angle of 20° has approximately 94mm of armor to pierce if I've done my calculation correctly.
The 75mm KwK 40 L/48 has about the following chances to penetrate with the listed ammo:
PnGr 40 has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 1,000m
PnGr 39 has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 500m
APCBC has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 500m
Does anybody know what kind of AP ammo the Panzer IV H is using in AH?
-
Very nice work Nate, congrats!
-
Originally posted by Mitsu
B-24 interior is completed?
is new version really close to release?
I've heard that its due out sometime late this month. My bet is the 25th or 26th. Remember, they still need to do the interior of the B-24 (if it hasnt already been done. Pyro made a post wondering about the bomb loadout in A/C forum) and the T-34, along with any extra goodies.
-
Very nice work.
Interesting thread as I've always thought the T34 was considered the best all round tank of WWII but obviously not.
Another myth perhaps is that Shermans tended to ignite pretty easily? I never questioned any of this but seem to remember it had a petrol engine?
-
I don't know if there was a "best" tank of WW2.
The King Tiger was a great tank... on defense. It wouldn't be any great shakes on offense because it wasn't very mobile.
I've heard the IS-2 was a fantastic design, I don't know much about tanks though. The last english tank to make it into the war (cromwell?) was also said to be a very good design.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
The turret looks fine to me. You need to elaborate about what you think is wrong with it. If you're comparing it to the photos above, you're comparing different things. One of the photos is a T-34/85 and the other shows an earlier production turret.
Yes, my mistake.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Arlo,
Frankly I'd rather see a Panther V A or Panther V D when it is added rather than the ultimate Panther V G. The V A or V D would be far more useful for scenarios than the V G.
There really wasnt much of a difference except that they were more reliable. The glacis armor was 80mm always except for a few 60mm early pre-producyion D, the side armor always had the same effectiveness - the G had thicker plates but was not as steeply sloped as the D and A models.
The only difference of note between definitive D/A and G were no direct vision port in G and for late G the new mantlet with a chin to prevent shells deflecting into the roof and adding the new cupola. Otherwise most of the changes were to improve reliabity.
-
I see what you're saying GRUNHERZ.
Basing the appropriatness of the tank on the gun makes more sense, barring massive armor upgrades. I'd think the following would make a good German tankset:
Panzer III J (50mm KwK 38 L/42)
Panzer IV D (75mm KwK 37 L/24)
Panzer IV F2 (75mm KwK 40 L/43)
Panzer IV H (75mm KwK 40 L/48) We have this one
Panther V G (75mm KwK 42 L/70)
Tiger I (88mm KwK 36 L/56) We have this one
Tiger II (88mm KwK 43 L/71)
A Russian tank set using the gun as the guideline:
T-26S (45mm Model 1938 L/46)
T-34/76A (76.2mm L-11 1939 L/30.3)
T-34/76D (76.2mm F-34 1942 L/41.2) We're getting this one
T-34/85 (85mm ZIS S-53 1944 L/51.5)
KV-85 (85mm ZIS S-53 1944 L/51.5)
IS-2 (122mm M1943 D-25 T L/43)
These tanks sets would track the steady increase in firepower as the war progressed.
The Panzer III J, Panzer IV D, T-26S and T-34/76A would be used for 1941.
The Panzer IV D, Panzer IV F2, T-34/76A and T-34/76D would be used for 1942 with the Tiger I possible for late '42 .
The Panzer IV F2, Panzer IV H, Tiger I, T-34/76D and KV-85 would be used for 1943.
The Panzer IV H, Panther V G, Tiger I, Tiger II, T-34/76D, T-34/85, KV-85 and IS-2 would be used for 1944 and 1945.
-
Do the Western! Do the Western!
M5 Stuart - 37mm
M3 Grant - 37 mm and 75 mm
Shermie jr. (M4 with 75 mm)
Shermie sr. (Jumbo) - 76 mm
Pershing - 90 mm
M7 Priest - 105 mm
-
I was leaving the pleasure of that to you.
Also, I'm not real good with tanks and, unlike with airplanes, have to look everything up.
Based on your list it looks like American tank progression works as well if the focus is on the gun.
I don't think that a full British tank set would be needed. Maybe two or three British tanks and one Italian, Japanese and French tanks, if any.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
A Panzer IV H firing at a T-34/76's front with a horizontal angle of 20° has approximately 94mm of armor to pierce if I've done my calculation correctly.
The 75mm KwK 40 L/48 has about the following chances to penetrate with the listed ammo:
PnGr 40 has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 1,000m
PnGr 39 has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 500m
APCBC has about a 25% chance to penetrate at 500m
Does anybody know what kind of AP ammo the Panzer IV H is using in AH?
Wow where did you get those numbers.
Even if your granted a 94mm armour for the front of the T34. The Panzers normal (39) ammo can kill it the whole way out.
500 - 114
1000- 85
2000 - 64
How so? because at the longer ranges the slope of the t34s hull is countered by the plung of the shot. So definatly a T34 is threatend by a Panzer IV with its normal ammo out to well beyond 1000 meters.
What happens in reverse?
500 - 71
1000 - 51
2000 - 40
Hope for a plung through the roof cause that tank is in trouble to get through the 80mm front hull on the Panzer IH. The 50mm turrent of the 50mm currved mantlet are doable but the Panzer is basically hull down to the T34 even at 500m!
If you introduce special ammo. Then the things change. The German ammo gets 150% of the penetration of the Soviet ammo and the T34 can be split end to end by the sub caliber 40 round.
The T34 gains some capability vs the Panzer but only at very short range. By 1000 meters certainly the Gun has returend to its normal penetration.
If the Pak 40 gets its special ammo it would be knocking out tigers pretty routinely.
Who knows how they will model it. The special ammo was very rare at all times for the soviets and by 44 almost unheared of for the Germans. They built 88s instead. Haveing 4 special ammo rounds in a T34 max would be about right. Maybe 2 in a Panzer IVh.
-
I made a mistake when I gestimated the chance of penetration, that is really all.
Remember, the German tests gave penetration if 50% of the shell passed through the armor and the Russian tests if 75% of the shell passed through the armor.
The differing test methods cause the numbers to be incomparable.
If the penetration numbers I based my post on were accruate, there should be a 50% chance of penetration at the ranges I listed, not a 25% chance.
That is still far better than the T-34's chances, but it isn't a guaranteed kill by any means.
Further, talking to an ex-tanker, he pointed out that the force is divided by the vector. That is, sloped armor does not just provide the additional thinkness that can be seen by measuring a line straight through it, it also redirects the engergy of the shell. In the case of a straight on shot to the T-34's front hull it redirects 2/3rds of the energy due to the 30° slope of the armor. If the round is coming in from 20° off center then it redirects even more of the energy.
His take on it was that the Panzer IV H was better due to it's vastly better gun, but that the slope of the T-34's armor would still give it a fighting chance.
-
Looks nice!
Do the tracks/wheels move?
Sounds!! are the sounds going to be implemented?
Can you have a tank crew?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh and Tilt I think thats actually a cast turret.
Actually I am pretty sure its fabricated......... the clue is the welded web fillets under the lip of the sloping turret. These are welded to brace the turret plates which have been layer welded and then ground smooth on the joins. The whole thing then has to be annealed and then hardened to ensure continuity of strength across the welds. (and more importantly adjacent to the welds)
If you look to the pictures given further up this thread you will see cast turrets...........infact on one you can still see where the moulding line has been left rather than fettled off . A cast turret does not need the web fillets because there is a large curved fillet cast into the under side of the main turret hexagon. You will also see the bottom of the hexagon is radiused on a cast turret but cut square on the fabricated one.
Given HTC's aversion to true radii then the fabricated turret was always the one they would choose.
Cast
(http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/5/56/T-34_76_Westerplatte_p_d.jpg)
Fabricated
(http://www.strategie.com.pl/teksty/zbrojownia/ladowe/ladowe/tank/t34.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Further, talking to an ex-tanker, he pointed out that the force is divided by the vector. That is, sloped armor does not just provide the additional thinkness that can be seen by measuring a line straight through it, it also redirects the engergy of the shell. In the case of a straight on shot to the T-34's front hull it redirects 2/3rds of the energy due to the 30° slope of the armor. If the round is coming in from 20° off center then it redirects even more of the energy.
That is in fact the only advantage of sloped armour. The added thickness of the sloped plate is offset by the increased weight of making the plate high enough. A sloped armour plate does not cover the same height as if it was vertical.
-
MOIL,
You can do gunner/driver tank crews right now, but it is very claustrophobic for the driver. Maybe it is being used to having a clear perspex around me so that I can see what is happening around me, but the complete lack of SA as a driver was kinda erie.
-
When? WHEN? WHEN? 2 weeks?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
MOIL,
You can do gunner/driver tank crews right now, but it is very claustrophobic for the driver. Maybe it is being used to having a clear perspex around me so that I can see what is happening around me, but the complete lack of SA as a driver was kinda erie.
Ah, roger that
P.S.
still no one answered the other questions, anyone ?
-
Not just anyone can answer it. You see ... nobody outside of HTC has driven it.
-
MOIL,
I don't know what you mean by "Have the sounds been implemented?"
As far as the wheels moving, well, the wheels move on the M8, M3 and M16. At least your wheels do, but as you can only see your wheels in external mode which is only usable offline that isn't very useful. I don't know if other people's M8, M3 or M16 wheels move when you're looking at them. In the case of the M8 the wheels actually seem to react to the terrain.
As too the T-34, I'd guess that the wheels will roll, but I obviously don't know for sure.
EDIT:
I just recalled that in the AH2 beta aircraft wheels were made to roll as well. Given that they bothered to make the aircraft wheels roll, I can't see them not having the T-34's wheels roll.