Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BlueJ1 on November 01, 2004, 01:40:52 PM
-
It sure is one ugly gv.
And one tough shell to crack.
-
LOL
are they everywhere in the MA right now?
-
They were until they were being owned mulitple times by panzers and tigers.
Tops out at 35.
T34 vs T34 is only good fights.
No top gun to shoot down aircraft =(
Hull gun real bad view.
Will work best IMO in tanktowns.
-
Yeah, the Panzer IV H should absolutely dominate the T-34/76D. At typical AH engagement rages the T-34 might as well not be armored according to the gun penetration data I was looking at on the internet.
-
The worry I have with our version of the T-34 (76.2mm gun version) is that:
1) Comparing the T-34 to PzrIV guns, the PzrIV should out-penetrate (ie chance of getting a penetration whereas the other gun cannot at a similar range) the T-34 by a good margin at long ranges
2) the T-34 does not have any real anti-air capability. Some people may mention the coaxil mg, but the fact is that using a coaxil for AA work is, IMHO, rediculous due to both the amount of time to turn to the target, target acquisition, and limited elevation.
This is somewhat offset by the speed of the T-34 (~10 mph faster than the PzrIV). The slope armor may also have some unforseen impact in AH above what I expect, but I haven't messed with the T-34 yet, so I have no way of judging its effects.
I am hoping that HTC will decide to bring in the T-34/85mm version soon since it SHOULD-ie I am guessing on this-be easy to model. I say this because the hull is the exact same one on the T-34/76 that we have. All they would need to add would be the model of the turret, turret armor data, and 85mm gun data.
Furthermore, although it would be faster and have a better gun than the PzrIV, it is 1) not up-armored from the T-34/76 [according to what I have read], 2) it would have a good/excellent chance of killing PzrIVs at long ranges, and a significantly better chance at killing Tigers. Furthermore, without any pintle gun (AA mount), ANY T-34s will always have to worry about enemy aircraft...and T-34s are going to be driving around in a game dominated by aircraft.
Having said all of that, I do believe that everyone should take time to actually test out what the T-34 can do in the game before they jump to any conclusions about it's viability in the MA.
-
Originally posted by emodin
and T-34s are going to be driving around in a game dominated by aircraft.
not by a really long shot. panzers have more kills than any aircraft by more than 2. ship gunners are the closest, yet behind by 20,000 kills overall.
hardly a plane dominated game.
-
Originally posted by JB73
not by a really long shot. panzers have more kills than any aircraft by more than 2. ship gunners are the closest, yet behind by 20,000 kills overall.
hardly a plane dominated game.
If there was only one decent unperked fighter plane in the game, it'd have a lot of kills too. Not a valid comparison.
Compare all aircraft kills to all GV kills, and you'd be a little closer to being relevant.
-
The number of kills is skewed towards the tanks, but I would argue that this is due more to the typical fighter/bomber straffing run that ends with said pilot slamming into terra firma than anything else. Heck, I got something around 30 kills once just by sitting at the end of a runway with no treads, no main turret (or pintle gun), and only 1 GV kill to my name. Or think about the number of spawn camping kills that goes on.
And if you don't buy that, just look around next time you are attacking a base and notice how many guys are in aircraft versus how many are in gvs.
Now, if you can show me that total aircraft deaths (as in EACH type of aircraft) is less than total gv deaths, then I might start to agree with you. Then again, since I fly and drive in AH, my personal experience would still tend to disagree with you.
-
Saying that PzIV has more kills than any single fighter is utterly ridiculus.
We have what? Maybe 50 or 100 fighters? And we have only 1 free unperked MBT up to now...
-
I haven't played with it with a Panzer. Althought I sat there are put nearly 30 shells from a T34 onto another T34. Nothing happened. Finally, when a plane bombed it I got the kill. The only thing I could touch was the treads.
It seemed to me like a lot of shots were ricocheting off that shouldn't have been. A dead straight on armor shot doesn't bounce up.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It seemed to me like a lot of shots were ricocheting off that shouldn't have been. A dead straight on armor shot doesn't bounce up.
With the T-34's sloped armor it can. That was the whole point of it.
-
t34 vs t34 is a long..............battle. Takes forever to do damage it seems.
-
You're right about that. Never realized it took so loooooooong to load the cannon on one of those. Gotta put some pep pills into that crew's borscht
-
Its beautifle
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yeah, the Panzer IV H should absolutely dominate the T-34/76D. At typical AH engagement rages the T-34 might as well not be armored according to the gun penetration data I was looking at on the internet.
Agreed, the T34 does seem to be a little tougher than it should be...
Bazi
-
If you guys would read up on the history of the T-34 a little you would see that against the German panzers it was outclassed in a 1 vs 1 tank battle primarily due to the range of the guns and the armor. However if you look at the Soviet armor doctrine for warfare you would notice that it wasn't necessarily a quality sort of thing. Seeing as how quantity has a quality all its own in warfare and if you can't kill 'em all then eventually you are going to loose.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
If you guys would read up on the history of the T-34 a little you would see that against the German panzers it was outclassed in a 1 vs 1 tank battle primarily due to the range of the guns and the armor.
That depends on the year. In 1941, which our T-34 is a fine sub for, it is more than a fair fight for any German tank. By the time the L48 gun on our Panzer IV H shows up though, things have changed. The Panzer IV F from 1942 would be a fairly even match, but the Panzer IV H is much better. The T-34/85 is a fair match for the Panzer IV H.
-
I tend to agree with Karnak. Another point of interest is that the T-34/85 did not show up until AFTER the battle of Kursk, at a time when the Germans were already fielding Tigers and early model Panthers. Basically, the Soviets had a better tank in the beginning of the war (T-34), but it was few in numbers and too spread out along the front to have any significant impact in the early fighting.
As to the T-34 in AH, I have noticed a tendency of tank rounds to bounce off or not penetrate the T-34's armor even at close ranges (including those made on side hull shots). In one engagement, my T-34 took an enemy T-34 under fire at literally point-blank range, and neither of us were able to get any damage done to the other.
-
As far as I can tell, T34 vs T34 at any range will see the rounds bounce off the front turret and front armor.
T34 vs Panzer IV is tilted towards the Panzer IV - it has a gun good enough that the bullets don't deflect off the front as often (although they'll still ricochet off the front turret more often than not), and the rate of fire is about twice as fast as the T34.
Tiger vs T34 is a complete one sided affair, the T-34 has no chance. I was able to disable the Tigers gun by closing to about 15 feet and hitting the rear turret twice, it was unable to penetrate the rear and side hull armor at any range.
-
There were thousands of T34s when the Germans invaded. But between poor deployment and the weaknesses of the vehicle the germans were able to over come them.
The T34 sounds like it has too much frontal armour. The 43 It shoudl be able to kill itself frontaly at 500 -1000 yards with out much trouble. The combination of not being able to see out of the vehicle and not having a radio are increadble force dividers. The germans had fewer and weaker tanks. Applied in concetrated attacks that could see and comunicate to manuver. Increadbale force multipliers.
The driver should absolutly not be able to raise his head out the top hatch like he can in a Panzer. The vehicle had no roof hatch for the driver and no lifting seat. If it can do that they should absolutly remove it. The only way for the driver to improve is view is to open up a square meter of the front armour. This is a fundimental design sacrifice of the balistic shape and relativly low weight of the T34 series. All he gets is the peep holes. Unless he wants to basically remove the upper glacis plate.
The tiger 1 should be able to do this but cannot in the game for some reason.
The tank should also not have the flexibility to arrange its ammo like the tank in the game can. The combinations were very limited and really really stressed HE over AP. They went to war with 20% AP maximum I think I read once.
The turrent travers seems very very generous. The Panzer IVH should have a faster turrent traverse then any T34 pre T34-85.
here is what our tank looks like if you try to give the driver a better view.
this is a very real disadvantage of the tank and should be modeled by resticting the ablity to raise the head position.
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t34_76/t34_02.jpg)
-
No, not what I meant. Even if it does no damage, a flat hit doesn't bounce off or away.
-
T-34 Medium Tank
The T-34 was a technologically innovative design which addressed the short-comings of the earlier BT series of wheel/track tank. The T-34 was developed during the 1936-37 period, the prototype was completed in early 1939, and in September 1940 T-34 was put into series production mounting a 76mm gun. The Model 1940, the first T-34 production variant, t was armed with the L-11 76.2 mm gun, which was considerably shorter than the subsequent F-34 76.2 mm main gun of the 1941 and later models. The mantlet was also round in contrast to the more square mantlets of later models. The tank's main advantage was its simple design which made it easy to mass produce and repair. The T-34 was also small and comparibaly light, while the tank's water-cooled diesel engine minimized the danger of fire and increased the tank's the radius of action. The design overcame the technological superiority of German forces during the Great Patriotic War. Built in Ukraine in the Kharkov Steam-Engine Factory (KhPZ), the German general von Runstedt called the T-34 the "best tank in the world" and von Kleist said it was the "finest in the world." The T-34 had a more powerful cannon than German tanks, a higher top speed (32 MPH versus 25 MPH), and superior sloped armor and superior welded construction. However, the German Tiger and Panther tanks outranged the T34's original 76mm gun, and subsequently a 85mm gun was mounted on a T-34 tank. The T-34/85 was a modification of the T-34 equipped with a more powerful armor and cannon. T-34/85 had a flatter turret which gave this already inovative tank design the look that all tanks adopted after the wars end. Although not equal to the German Panther and Tiger tanks, the huge numbers of T-34s more than compensated for their technological shortcomings.
Users: Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Vietnam, former Yugoslavia and other CIS states.
-
PONGO
Think you may be wrong about the top hatch. Looked at many pictures of the T34 that had the top hatch open. There were even captured T34's that the germans used. One had a cross on the hatch door with a guy standing in it, looking out.
-
looks like it has a periscope out of the top? is that the reason for the view?
-
I am talking about a hull roof hatch for the driver that would allow him to raise his head for a good view while driving. There was no such thing.
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t34_76/t34_78.gif)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, not what I meant. Even if it does no damage, a flat hit doesn't bounce off or away.
What do you mean by a "flat hit"?
There really isn't an easy way to obtain such a thing against the T-34.
-
Longer range, plunging shot. less slope protection.
-
There was a T34 broadside to me. I knocked his left track out and when he dipped down his armor became almost flat to me.
I was aiming and no matter where I hit it would penetrate. I found an exact spot that would change the bounce from up to down, from left to right. So if I hit dead center it's armor wouldn't mean anything.
Of course, rounds coming in almost perpindicular even off by a few degrees should still penetrate.
-
would or would not penetrate?
-
use arrow keys to modify driver position, you can then see fine. As for "anti-air capability" in any tank, that is an Aces High invention - not a product of history. It does seem unfair to only punish the Russians in the modeling though.
-
"WW2 Ballistics: Armour and gunnery" gives charts and data how to calculate "effective armour" vs certain type of ammo.
T-34's glacis was 45mm thick and at 60dgr angle from horizontal. When against PzIV Ausf.H it would be shot with 75mm APCBC ammunition.
Books uses T/D ratio which is simple Thickness (of armour) / Diameter (of projectile).
45mm/75mm = 0,6
Now when looking at chart for APCBC ammo slope multipliers we'll see that at 60dgr angle T/D ratio of 0,6 gives armour multiplier ~2,7
So vs 75mm APCBC ammo T-34's 60dgr, 45mm glacis protects like 2,7x45= 121,5mm of armour at 0dgr angle.
German 75L48 penetrates that from ~500m if shot from straight ahead; if round comes in worse angle the penetration decreases fast.
Then again Russian 76L41 F-34 cannon should have hard time penetrating IV-H's 80mm front plate even from 100m at optimum angle, 50mm turret and mantlet easier, from 1500-2000m.
-
Zanth if you can modify your drivers head position outside of the top of the hull then the T34 is modeld incorreclty. The tiger, panzer IV, even the sherman could do this. A t34 could not. As I have shown.
As to the effectiveness of anti aircraft MGs on tanks
The oposite is true. Tanks with AAMG where much more likly to kill aircraft then the aircraft where to kill them.
The soviets didnt have them on thier early T34s because they didnt have dedicated comander to man the thing. They learned very well that its an important fixture of a tank.
At the end of the war they routinely equiped thier heavy tanks with 12.7mm AAMGs. Had the war continued for another month in Europe the American M26 would have been routine including the version with 2 50 calls in the comanders coupola.
You have reversed reality. The AAMG or pintle gun was recognized as an absolute necessity for tanks by 1944.
They were way more likley to kill a persistant aircraft then bomber defensive guns were. All the advantages are with the tank.
The M4a3 75 with its 50 cal pintle will be maybe the best non perk tank in the game when introduced.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I am talking about a hull roof hatch for the driver that would allow him to raise his head for a good view while driving. There was no such thing.
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t34_76/t34_78.gif)
No there weren't but it had a large hatch in front of driver: http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/museum/images/T34-85_1.jpg
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/museum/index.htm
-
Pongo, are you seriously saying that tank commanders whos tanks were under strafing attack stayed at that MG to fire at the attacking aircraft?
That seems like a fantastic way to commit suicide.
-
read my post.
Tanks were more deadly to aircraft then the reverse.
the AAMG can kill the aircraft. THe aircraft almost cannot kill the tank. Look at the development of equiping tanks with AAMG. Its self evident.
-
Originally posted by Staga
No there weren't but it had a large hatch in front of driver: http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/museum/images/T34-85_1.jpg
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/museum/index.htm
did you read my posts? I described that hatch in them. I posted a picture of it. If we want to remove the armour on the most signifigant 25% of the front aspect of the tank then go ahead and open that hatch in combat.
-
Oh, I don't doubt that a .50 could kill an aircraft... but the bullets coming out of that aircraft would be able to shred the guy manning the AAMG, not to mention get inside the tank.
I'm definately not an expert, but it seems to me that being strafed by an airplane while your tank is unbuttoned is a quick way to make hamburger out of the tank commander.
-
The task of the comander is easier and more safe then task that the fighter has chosen for itself.
You make it sound like the tank comander would be fool hardy to man his gun but the pilot is sensible to strafe a tank he cant hurt but that can very much hurt him. The only point on that tank that the strafer can hurt is about 1 foot square. The AAMG can hurt the plane all over.
Tanks evolved to have AAMGs because it is a very effective way to deal with fighter bombers.
-
Give me a Pz V and we'll call it a day :D
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Oh, I don't doubt that a .50 could kill an aircraft... but the bullets coming out of that aircraft would be able to shred the guy manning the AAMG, not to mention get inside the tank.
I'm definately not an expert, but it seems to me that being strafed by an airplane while your tank is unbuttoned is a quick way to make hamburger out of the tank commander.
what urchin said.
pongo you are deluding yourself if you think tank commanders went out of their tanks and shot strafing planes... that IS suicide
-
Arlo drives a Russkie tank.
Vroom! Hey this thing accelerates! Don't like hills much. Hey Vladimir ... let me shoot the gun!
*boom*
Hey, Vladimir, you asleep? Reload!
Vladimir?
*chunk-a-thunk*
Thanks, Vlad!
*boom*
(Arlo waits)
Ok .... guess it loads slower or I got a one armed crewman loading.
Up top.
Ok ... why am I here? Better view? Target? No pintel mount, of course ... T-34s didn't have them. Eh, guess if I wanna look behind me ... that's bout it. Back to driver seat - get out Vlad.
Hmmmm .... hull gun ... hmmm ... oh yeah! (hits key 4).
Wtf? Whoa ... ok cool. Tank's modeled for us to look through a seperate hull mg sight. *budda budda budda* Haaaarrrrrrr!
Ok ..... crawl up the hill. Oh - steep drop off ... ok - wth ... here we goooooooooo!
(Arlo flips tank on top)
You ok, Vlad?
(Arlo goes to turret)
Hey! Man - these T34 turrets are tough! Spins around fine sittin on the ground. Vladimir, load!
*boom*
Cool!
(http://jollyrogers.info/images/T34onhead.jpg)
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
what urchin said.
pongo you are deluding yourself if you think tank commanders went out of their tanks and shot strafing planes... that IS suicide
flyboy. I dont know what your envisioning. But I am envisioning the crew comander using the machine gun as it was desgned for the purpose that it was designed.
You all seem to accept that a pilot is just reasonable to strafe a tank he cant hurt but that a tank comander is sucicidal to return fire against an aircraft that he can hurt.
History is on my side.
It is as suicidal for a fighter bomber to go arround staring down well armed tank as if he is invulnerable.
If fighters behaved that way at the end of the day there would be no fighters and lots of tanks.
Dont know what war or wars you guys are talking about.
I was responding to this.
"use arrow keys to modify driver position, you can then see fine. As for "anti-air capability" in any tank, that is an Aces High invention - not a product of history. It does seem unfair to only punish the Russians in the modeling though."
which is flat out incorrect. The russians identified this weakness in thier tanks and corrected it in later generations.
FOR A VERY GOOD REASON.
argue with history guys.
You cant hunt down aircraft in a medium tank. But if the aircraft uses a vulenerable attack you can criple him with resolute well armed return fire if you have the right gun.
-
pongo i agree with you that a fighter have avery low chance of doing any dammage to the tank itself BUT if any of the tanks crew pop out of the tank and expose himself directly to the fighter. he has a very high chance of becoming a shapeless red mush.
as a result.. i doubt anyone with common sense will get out of his releteve pretected tank (we agree the plane has a very low chance of harming the tank) and in to the hail of bullets.
-
what do you envisoin he has to do? He is 60% covered in his hatch wich he can duck down in at any time in 1 second. He doesnt sit out side the tank. I aggree hes not likey to face down the direct strafe of the aircraft but right up to the last second he is in no danger and the aircraft is.