Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: ShrkBite on August 11, 2008, 05:46:51 PM
-
Doesnt it look tiny. like to me it looks like i can run over it in a panzer. it also looks weak....next thing you know people are gonna be landing kills in D3A's, killing T34's. iunno i like the old one much better.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Char_T-34.jpg)
-
Doesnt it look tiny. like to me it looks like i can run over it in a panzer. it also looks weak....next thing you know people are gonna be landing kills in D3A's, killing T34's. iunno i like the old one much better.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Char_T-34.jpg)
Be free to continue to use the, old, soemhwat smaller (turret) T34 with it's smaller gun ;)
-
I just hope and pray that the T34/85 turret traverses as rapidly as the current one does, and that the gun elevates as high. If it doesn't, it's going to lose a lot against the B25H and the IL2 and whatnot that try strafing it. It'll gain a lot against GVs though, obviously. I can hardly wait.
-
Well, it should be an awesome unit as compared to the early t34...
a little slower, but much better gun... with faster reload speed
because of the 3 man turret, (loader)... I do believe that it had a
electric turret traverse, that was reverse engineered from the valentine
and gunsight as well...
Panzers better watch out in midwar!!!!
RC
-
Panzers better watch out in midwar!!!!
I don't think the T-34/85 was introduced until '44, which would make it a Late War tank.
-
To my knowledge, they used it in the third (final battle) for kharkov
in late 43... but you have a point, small numbers, perked in midwar???
By 44 they were already working on the T44, 100mm version.... Which
was present in significant numbers for the oder crossing, and berlin...
I have found conflicting info on the timeline... but late 43 seems the
most common...
-
As a certified t34 nut (almost my only gv ride for 2 years now) I am really looking forward to the 85. A big <<S>> to Waffle and those responsible for its design and development in our game.
I am really looking forward to using the sloping armor to its best advantage against the tiger and sherman in head on long range duels that I can't hope to engage in with our current model.
Still there will always be a soft spot for the t34/75 with me, it may be the ugly ducking of the GV hanger, but nothing feels quite as good as snuffing a tiger in one.
:rock
-
I don't think the 34 is ugly... kinda cool lookin!!!
I use the pnzr because of the gun... thats it!!!
The early 34 cant demonstrate it excellence in the game
because of the fact that the only german medium tank
is PnzrIVH, in midwar that should be fairly rare... PnzrIII
was most numerous in midwar, and STUGIII, which was
the 34's main threat.... Again to my knowledge!!!
-
To my knowledge, they used it in the third (final battle) for kharkov
in late 43... but you have a point, small numbers, perked in midwar???
By 44 they were already working on the T44, 100mm version.... Which
was present in significant numbers for the oder crossing, and berlin...
I have found conflicting info on the timeline... but late 43 seems the
most common...
I don't recall ever seeing a source that says the T-34/85 was put into production before February 1944. I also have never heard of a 100mm version, let alone one that served in combat. Is it possible you are getting confused with the IS-2 and/or the SU-85 and SU-100s, which were based on T-34 chassis?
-
No, no confusion at all...
JSII heavy tank 122mm gun...
SU85 turretless TD/assault gun...
SU100, same as 85 w 100mm gun
T44 was in service at the end of the war,
100mm gun, in time for the Oder crossing
and the Battle of Berlin...
they look very similar to the 85, except for an
even longer barrel, and a rotating cupola for
the tank commander w 8 vision blocks...
No kiddin man!!!
I was surprised by that too...
Didn't realize it untill I found a russian authored
book in the public library. showed both, w berlin pics...
It gave the complete genesis of rusky tanks up to the T72
stunning to me as well!!!
but its true!!!
After the war, they were used by Warsaw Pact,
North Korea in 1950, and Many were sold to the Arab nations...
After the T54 came into service...
no BS man
RC
-
To my knowledge, they used it in the third (final battle) for kharkov
in late 43... but you have a point, small numbers, perked in midwar???
By 44 they were already working on the T44, 100mm version.... Which
was present in significant numbers for the oder crossing, and berlin...
I have found conflicting info on the timeline... but late 43 seems the
most common...
Every book I have say Spring of 1944 for the The T-34-85 Model 1944. This being the model with the 3 man turret and the ZiS-S-53 main gun. Now, I do believe IIRC that several T-34-85 Model 1943 tanks were manufactured from Feb. to March 1944 with the D-5T 85 mm main gun.
-
I'm sure the book is still on the shelf at the library..
Its not like a very popular topic...
I'll go get it and scan the pages for ya...
I wish I could steal it, but its not in my character
to do that...
You'll be just as stunned as I was...
RC
-
T44 was in service at the end of the war,
100mm gun, in time for the Oder crossing
and the Battle of Berlin...
OK, so now you are talking about the T-44 tank, not a T-34 with a 100mm gun.
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/95/43/lang,en/
The T-44 didn't take part in any battle of the Second World War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44
The T-44 was issued to three tank brigades mustered on September 15, 1944 for training purposes, but these formations were re-equipped with T-34-85 medium tanks prior to entering the Battle of Berlin and Prague Offensive. These were the 6th Guards, 33rd Guards, and 63rd Guards Tank Brigades.[20] The T-44A medium tank was not used operationally during WWII
Any other references to the T-44 I have seen in my limited search only mention it in passing, and generally as a precursor to the T-54. It would seem to me that if it was deployed in any numbers, there would be a mention of it.
By the way, it seems the T-34/100 did exist -- as a prototype.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34_variants
T-34-100 - Designation for two T-34-85 prototypes armed with 100 mm guns made in 1945. One prototype had the standard T-34-85 turret while the other had a new bigger turret with better armour protection. They were originally armed with ZiS-100 guns and later rearmed with D-34-100 and LB-1/LB-1M guns. They were not accepted into production.[3]
I know how some feel about Wiki, but they are referenced, so likely at least somewhat accurate.
-
I'm sure the book is still on the shelf at the library..
Its not like a very popular topic...
I'll go get it and scan the pages for ya...
I wish I could steal it, but its not in my character
to do that...
You'll be just as stunned as I was...
RC
That would be great! Always nice to learn something.
-
I was surprised to read that stuff too
Thought those photos, (that I had seen before)
were regular old T34/85s, but there was a diff...
just never noticed it before
-
Doesnt it look tiny. like to me it looks like i can run over it in a panzer. it also looks weak....next thing you know people are gonna be landing kills in D3A's, killing T34's. iunno i like the old one much better.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Char_T-34.jpg)
It looks like a monster to me ...At least for its day. http://www.pbase.com/kees_s/image/83674467
-
I don't think the T-34/85 was introduced until '44, which would make it a Late War tank.
And what the heck are Wirbel & Ostwind doing in MW then? ;)
-
Oh well, one more type of bomb fodder :D
(See avatar)
-
As a certified t34 nut (almost my only gv ride for 2 years now) I am really looking forward to the 85. A big <<S>> to Waffle and those responsible for its design and development in our game.
I am really looking forward to using the sloping armor to its best advantage against the tiger and sherman in head on long range duels that I can't hope to engage in with our current model.
Still there will always be a soft spot for the t34/75 with me, it may be the ugly ducking of the GV hanger, but nothing feels quite as good as snuffing a tiger in one.
:rock
I'm going to get Opposum to post that film he has, he was in a Tiger and he messed with a guy in a T34/75 for about 10 or 15 min's. riding around and around this guy, all the time that guy was shooting his Tiger and he took no damage in his tiger. I kind of lost interest and respect for the T34 after that!
:noid
-
I'm going to get Opposum to post that film he has, he was in a Tiger and he messed with a guy in a T34/75 for about 10 or 15 min's. riding around and around this guy, all the time that guy was shooting his Tiger and he took no damage in his tiger. I kind of lost interest and respect for the T34 after that!
:noid
:D :lol :lol :lol
-
And what the heck are Wirbel & Ostwind doing in MW then? ;)
I don't think they should be. Said as much the last time I was in there. If I had any friends, you could ask them.
I will admit to being a bit fuzzy with the exact (if you could call them that) cut-offs that HiTech is using.
-
I'm going to get Opposum to post that film he has, he was in a Tiger and he messed with a guy in a T34/75 for about 10 or 15 min's. riding around and around this guy, all the time that guy was shooting his Tiger and he took no damage in his tiger. I kind of lost interest and respect for the T34 after that!
Yeah no doubt, I'd have lost respect for that T34 too. The T34 could run circles around the Tiger, traverse his turret faster than the Tiger, and with a nice HVAP to the side or rear of the turret, should have popped it, not to mention a round to the engine to kill it, and a round into the side armor to kill it. Tigers aren't that hard to kill in a T34 when you're only 50 feet away and not facing the front armor. Don't see how he couldn't pull it off. Even if all he had were HE rounds, in 15 minutes he shoulda been able to at least track the thing. ROFL.
-
The problem is where as the m4 introduced is a mid-war variant not represenitive of the most produced version, the t34 is an early war variant with a gun useless for anything other than killing troops in this game.
They are fixing an oversight...and its about bloody time...
Shermans where decidedly junk in ww2, where as the t34 was a scary machine for the germans to cross, I figure your about to see a very popular tank introduced into the game, be happy. :rock
-
the t34 is an early war variant with a gun useless for anything other than killing troops in this game.
say what???
Have you ever even used the t34 in the game?
-
The problem is where as the m4 introduced is a mid-war variant not represenitive of the most produced version, the t34 is an early war variant with a gun useless for anything other than killing troops in this game.
They are fixing an oversight...and its about bloody time...
Shermans where decidedly junk in ww2, where as the t34 was a scary machine for the germans to cross, I figure your about to see a very popular tank introduced into the game, be happy. :rock
Watch some more history channel. :aok
-
Ah.. I'm sure most people know this already, but the current T34/76 can kill Panzers at almost any range* (hit the turret), can one shot kill M4s at short range (with HVAP hit the sides or rears of the hull or turret, not the tracks, at ~90deg or hit the center of the rounded area below the glacis when head on), and can even one shot kill Tigers at ranges below 500 (with HVAP hit the side of the turret or side of the hull at 90 deg, it has to be a near 90 deg shot).
That being said, I am sure looking forward to the new T34/85: better gun, faster loading, same good speed, same good hull armor.
*as a reminder, don't use HVAP at ranges beyond about 1200. It isn't as good at long range as normal AP.
-
T34 was at a leathality disatvantage since the first day it was introduced, update is in time to save it from "hanger queen" status.
-
T34 was at a leathality disatvantage since the first day it was introduced, update is in time to save it from "hanger queen" status.
Again.. have you ever played this game?
T34 is as far from hangar queen as you can come. They are all over the place and in many respects its the best tank we have here. Fast, good armor and a gun that can kill all the other tanks at a reasonable range. Its the only tank with perhaps the exeption of the tiger that you can roll onto an enemy base with that has all ack up and seldom suffer any damage from the ack. The M4 and Panzer loses the turret rather quickly.
-
I don't recall ever seeing a source that says the T-34/85 was put into production before February 1944. I also have never heard of a 100mm version, let alone one that served in combat. Is it possible you are getting confused with the IS-2 and/or the SU-85 and SU-100s, which were based on T-34 chassis?
The T-34/76 1943 model was the stop gap, no t34/85's saw service till 44 in operational numbers....
-
Yea, the T-34 routinely scores between 1 and 3% of all GV kills. Just about like cockroaches... everywhere!
Oh wait..
-
What does that have to do with the T34 becoming a hangar queen?
-
Doesnt it look tiny. like to me it looks like i can run over it in a panzer. it also looks weak....next thing you know people are gonna be landing kills in D3A's, killing T34's. iunno i like the old one much better.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Char_T-34.jpg)
Yeah. You can run it over with a panzer if you can even get near the sucker.
-
say what???
Have you ever even used the t34 in the game?
The T34 gun is useful for shooting down planes that dive in on the T34, if the pilot is good at locating the targets through the drinking-straw of a gunsight.
It's also useful for blowing up planes that are on the ground trying to take off, or have just barely taken off.
It's useful for killing troops and M3s.
It's useful for popping wirbel turrets at reasonably long ranges, and killing the wirbels with side hull shots out to 400-600 yards or so, or 800 yards though requiring on average more than one hit.
It's useful for popping panzer turrets out to a 1000 or so, and killing panzers from the side or rear out to the same 600-800 yards or so, or from the front sometimes at very close range.
It's useful for popping Sherman turrets only from the side or back, or killing Shermans from the side, at ranges shorter than 800 for common one-shot kills, or 800 or 1000 for multi-shot kills, and can't really kill a Sherman from the front except fluky shots from right in their face.
It's useful for popping Tiger turrets from the side or back at short range with high frequency. It can one-shot kill a Tiger, not guaranteed but common enough, with a close to 90 degree side armor shot with HVAP from 50 or 100 feet away or so, or sometimes out to a couple hundred yards. It can fairly easily kill a Tiger's engine from the rear at close range.
Basically, against most tanks, the T34 gun is useless unless you're within 800 yards, and then at 800 yards it's only useful against some of the tanks, from the side or back, but not usually from the front, except for Panzer turrets, which can be popped from the front at that range. Against Shermans and Tigers you need to hit them from the side or from the back, and you need to be close. With Shermans you can do it out to 600-800 yards with a good straight 90 degree side armor shot, with Tigers you gotta be closer than that. Much closer.
When I'm in a T34 and I'm fighting a Tiger I won't even bother shooting him any further than 400 yards out unless he's running away from me and already knows I'm there, in which case I'll try to kill his engine. If he doesn't know I'm there I'll usually keep on driving and try to get right up to him, like 50-100 feet or closer, before I'll fire. Yeah, T34s can kill Tigers who don't have good SA. I've killed probably 7 or 8 Tigers so far this month in my T34, but I would guess that none of these guys were first-rate tank drivers in this game. A first-rate tank driver would never have let me get in that close.
ps: my best mission so far this month in a T34 I was attacking a port and I'd already gone in to the port and fought tanks in previous sorties. Two Shermans and a Tiger had killed me (I'd also killed them before individually) and were driving out to the spawn. I met them partway back toward the Port and chose some nice low hills to hide behind and move around to get in behind them. By the time the fight was over I'd killed both Shermans and the Tiger. That would never have happened with first-rate tank drivers in those tanks. I can really hardly wait for the T34/85. It will make killing Shermans and Tigers a hell of a lot easier and more frequent.
-
T34 is as far from hangar queen as you can come. They are all over the place and in many respects its the best tank we have here. Fast, good armor and a gun that can kill all the other tanks at a reasonable range.
I have to strongly disagree with this last statement. Sure, it can kill Tigers if you're right up next to them and hitting them from the side or back. From the front you're screwed, even at point-blank range. And to a significant but slightly lesser extent, it's the same way with the Sherman. Even the Panzer at 800-1000 yards is really killable from the front before they kill you only if you're good at hitting them in the turret, which, thank Jebus, a T34 can often or even usually pop at that range. Not so with the Sherman and Tiger turrets.
Its the only tank with perhaps the exeption of the tiger that you can roll onto an enemy base with that has all ack up and seldom suffer any damage from the ack. The M4 and Panzer loses the turret rather quickly.
I like the T34 actually better than the Tiger for base assault, because it's turret traverses so much more quickly. That said, once the VH pops, the T34 is definitely going to die in the next few minutes if more than one guy is upping, even if the T34 is right behind the VH popping people in the back of the head. The Tiger, on the other hand, can outlast the T34 in that circumstance. Still, I'll take a T34 almost every time to a base.
-
Dont be so high on the soap box.... of course the t34 can kill most anything at 400 yards whilst behind it,..... and a kid could jam a turret with a wooden wedge and a hammer given enough time. That isnt the point I was making, its about traversing the distance required to get within the range of whatever weapon youve got.
Now before the Sherman got here I would take the T-34 out every now and then and try it, with some succes, BUT admitidly as of late the ole' green goblin gets its butt kicked at long distances, and its allways climbed hills like an old man with a bum leg...
(I believe we are getting a 5th gear in this new version yes/no?)
Useless? NO,I went to far in declaring it useless, and I retract that remark...
Worth the effort of driving ten minutes just to end up back in the tower due to an underpowerd gun? NO.
Its good for rolling into fields and deacking, I agree... but the first Sherman that rolls out to defend is gonna punch through it like a wet paper sack, with almost no hope of the T-34 doing anything other than scratching its paint.
Its very disheartening to close on another vehicle that is firing on your mates from behind a hill, round the corner, fire a round at closs range, and have it ping off into obscurity..
It makes me very happy to know the fix is otw, yet sad to think the old version will sit in the hanger...
Oh yeh and the History channel comment....Dude I doubt any of us where out driving tanks in world war two, let alone driven a tank period, so you might cut me some slack on my television viewing habits,,,anyway if you have information that makes one of my statements obviously untrue POST IT, dont try to pull the rug out from under me with snide remarks.
It hurts my feelings, and now I dont even want to watch the Hitler channel anymore :frown:
Dont make it so personal, im not trying to hurt anyones feelings....all im saying is the current T-34 we have is a piece of junk, unworthy of sitting across a field from any other tank in the game but itself, and that battle would last all day or until both tanks where tracked, and the crew's reduced to beating each other with sticks and stones, all for lack of a weapon capable of punching through frontal armor at ANY worthwhile distance.
I hope i've made myself clear to all the pundits, and given ammunition for this thread to continue on, but in all honesty ive beaten this one to death, and I really dont care anymore what anybody thinks.
Besides even if they introduced a coke can with a go-cart engine im the one who's got to drive the thing and ill decide how good or bad it is for me at killing tigers...Toodles :aok
-
It is to bad we can't use captured vehicles. Could you imagine a quad flack panzer withthe speed of a t34. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/t34.htm
-
Poopysaid
It's been covered over and over and over again. The Shermans were not as bad as "the history channel " would have you believe. Search the bbs yourself I'm not doing it for you. :aok
-
The T-34/85 should be a good tank to use. Just like the current T34 we have it has good armor and speed. The gun on this thing will be better than the current version T34. I am curious to see if they keep the same ammo load out on it??? If AH2 does their homework it will be a good tank vs. the panzer and probably will dominate the panzer in a fight. It should also be a good match for the shermans if the 34 gets first shot on target before the sherman can zero in on you. Against the Tiger I dont think it will be any better than the current vehicles and that will be dependent on who is in the T34 and his/her skills in tank vs. tank combat in this game. Of course rear and flank shots can kill it. If anything in this game we need to change is the armor package the sherman has. I think in this game it is given more than it had historically. Though the sherman has an upgunned package in the 17pdr it still had the fatal flaw of thin armor. I dont know how many times I have hit a sherman center mass with the 88mm and nothing happens. The 88mm version of the tiger could cut through any sherman at any range. But this is just my opinion on the sherman. But the new T34/85 will definitely get a tryout from me to see if I like the way it is presented in the game. I think the T34 may put the panzer out of business for a bit.
BigKev03
-
Kev, have you ever looked up any stats on how thick the armor on the Sherman is, or are you just repeating popular myth?
-
Read the book "Death Traps"...................
Reason the Sherman shows so well here is a lack of man man-portable anti tank guns, rockets, tanks,and tank destroyers.
By early war standerds...yes an ok ride, but by the time of Normandy the Sherman was frequently getting destroyed, and by the end of the war america had switched to a heavier tank design.
Im not here to argue, ill take the word of the guy in the field, and this author wasnt saying "only the Panther and Tiger where killing Shermans"
This obsession with the History Channel is a myth buddy, just because you use it in a sentence doesnt make the Sherman any less of a "Gamey" vehicle, ill say it one more time for you, lack of the numerouse anti tank arms that where often used against it is the reason this tank does so well here..... :aok
-
Is the new T-34 going to be perked ?
-
Is the new T-34 going to be perked ?
As they introduced the Firefly VC unperked I'd imagine the T-34/85 will at least test intro as unperked.
EDIT:
Thinking about it, the relatively rapid addition of the T-34/85 after the Firefly VC may be due to the failure of the Firefly VC to be another high end unperked tank to spread the high usage of the Panzer IV H with another competitive tank, but not overwhelming tank.
-
correcting a mistake ?
-
correcting a mistake ?
The tank armor code is very complex. Makes it harder to predict how something will pan out. They thought the T-34/76 would be more competitive than it was, and thought the Firefly VC wouldn't be as dominating as it is.
-
thanks...not a computer guy...never thought about a programming issue...always wondered why there was only 1 version of each gv where as there are multiple of some aircraft. I guess they went for best model ? only thing I don't like about T-34 is that it bounces quite a bit.
-
thanks...not a computer guy...never thought about a programming issue...always wondered why there was only 1 version of each gv where as there are multiple of some aircraft. I guess they went for best model ? only thing I don't like about T-34 is that it bounces quite a bit.
Well, the code is shared by each tank. The complexity of it makes it hard to tell how well a given gun will do.
The reason we don't have many tanks is that this is primarily a flight combat game.
-
This obsession with the History Channel is a myth buddy, just because you use it in a sentence doesnt make the Sherman any less of a "Gamey" vehicle, ill say it one more time for you, lack of the numerouse anti tank arms that where often used against it is the reason this tank does so well here..... :aok
I don't think I or anyone else with a gripe against the History Channel is arguing that the Sherman was "uber" or dominated its opposition. But the matter of degree to which some people will go to put down the Sherman as "useless", a "bad tank", a "failure", etc. etc. while often simultaniously talking about how wonderfully uber the T-34 was is ridiculous.
The History Channel's top 10 tanks program is a prime example. They repeated the myth that it was the fact the Shermans used gasoline that made the early ones prone to burning. They also give highest marks to the T-34 for firepower even though its 76mm gun was no better than the snub 75mm on the M4, which they rate low. They list the armor for each at a maximum 62mm, but this is "very poor" on the Sherman but gets top marks on the T-34. And these tanks are contemporaries -- it isn't like trying to compare the Abrams with the WWI tanks where you have to fudge a bit for timeframe.
The T-34 gained a reputation as an Ubertank on the Steppes of the Soviet Union fighting 37mm armed PzkwIIIs, and Pzkw38s. The Sherman earned its reputation as a deathtrap being hit by 88mm armed Tigers and 75mm armed Panthers in Normandy. Reverse the situations, you would likely reverse the reputations.
-
I don't think I or anyone else with a gripe against the History Channel is arguing that the Sherman was "uber" or dominated its opposition. But the matter of degree to which some people will go to put down the Sherman as "useless", a "bad tank", a "failure", etc. etc. while often simultaniously talking about how wonderfully uber the T-34 was is ridiculous.
The History Channel's top 10 tanks program is a prime example. They repeated the myth that it was the fact the Shermans used gasoline that made the early ones prone to burning. They also give highest marks to the T-34 for firepower even though its 76mm gun was no better than the snub 75mm on the M4, which they rate low. They list the armor for each at a maximum 62mm, but this is "very poor" on the Sherman but gets top marks on the T-34. And these tanks are contemporaries -- it isn't like trying to compare the Abrams with the WWI tanks where you have to fudge a bit for timeframe.
The T-34 gained a reputation as an Ubertank on the Steppes of the Soviet Union fighting 37mm armed PzkwIIIs, and Pzkw38s. The Sherman earned its reputation as a deathtrap being hit by 88mm armed Tigers and 75mm armed Panthers in Normandy. Reverse the situations, you would likely reverse the reputations.
True to a point. Keep in mind that the T-34/76 was an earlier tank than the M4. The Grant is more directly comparable to the T-34/76. By the time the M4 Sherman was meeting Tigers and Panthers at Normandy, there were thousands of T-34/85s. While those didn't really address the armor issues the T-34 had by that time, the 85mm gun was significantly better than the 75mm gun on early Shermans.
But I do agree the T-34 wasn't the uber tank it is often portrayed as, but more a pointer tank in the direction things needed to be taken. A first go or beta version if you will before the concepts it introduced could be refined.
-
I don't think I or anyone else with a gripe against the History Channel is arguing that the Sherman was "uber" or dominated its opposition. But the matter of degree to which some people will go to put down the Sherman as "useless", a "bad tank", a "failure", etc. etc. while often simultaniously talking about how wonderfully uber the T-34 was is ridiculous.
The History Channel's top 10 tanks program is a prime example. They repeated the myth that it was the fact the Shermans used gasoline that made the early ones prone to burning. They also give highest marks to the T-34 for firepower even though its 76mm gun was no better than the snub 75mm on the M4, which they rate low. They list the armor for each at a maximum 62mm, but this is "very poor" on the Sherman but gets top marks on the T-34. And these tanks are contemporaries -- it isn't like trying to compare the Abrams with the WWI tanks where you have to fudge a bit for timeframe.
The T-34 gained a reputation as an Ubertank on the Steppes of the Soviet Union fighting 37mm armed PzkwIIIs, and Pzkw38s. The Sherman earned its reputation as a deathtrap being hit by 88mm armed Tigers and 75mm armed Panthers in Normandy. Reverse the situations, you would likely reverse the reputations.
Hmm how fast was rounds storage improved once learned it was the problem?
-
The tank armor code is very complex. Makes it harder to predict how something will pan out. They thought the T-34/76 would be more competitive than it was, and thought the Firefly VC wouldn't be as dominating as it is.
The T34/76 needed to be upgraded to the T34/85 precisely because it's gun was so weak, and the Firefly's 17 lber gun was insanely powerful. The T34's gunsight is also the worst in the game, while the Firefly's is the best. Bottom line is that the T34/76 almost never kills a Sherman with a front armor or frontal turret hit at any range, including point blank, while the Sherman will kill the T34 with front armor hits out to any range you can score hits at, seriously, this shouldn't have been that hard to predict.
-
Hmm how fast was rounds storage improved once learned it was the problem?
Here is a link to a book page on the subject. Extra armor was being added to the bins as early as '43 while wet storage was introduced in February '44.
Linky (http://books.google.com/books?id=IULV2RLYahkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Wet+stowage+world+war+II+sherman&source=web&ots=W06ukCkHlN&sig=5UAyn4tSfk9tr_4nqehFuIdPKjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result)
-
True to a point. Keep in mind that the T-34/76 was an earlier tank than the M4. The Grant is more directly comparable to the T-34/76. By the time the M4 Sherman was meeting Tigers and Panthers at Normandy, there were thousands of T-34/85s. While those didn't really address the armor issues the T-34 had by that time, the 85mm gun was significantly better than the 75mm gun on early Shermans.
I disagree that the M3 Lee/Grant is a better fit for the moniker of "contemporary" to the T-34/76. The M3 was known at the time to be a stop-gap vehicle while the M-4 was being developed. It was clearly an "earlier generation", if you will.
The Sherman was seeing action in late '42 and '43, which is well before the introduction of the T-34/85, which I believe was introduced in February '44. If you are going to compare the Sherman to the T-34/85, then you have to acknowledge that by mid to late '44 the first up-gunned Shermans were also seeing combat. The Sherman lagged the T-34 by months, not a generation.
So I suppose it is the difference whether you consider a Sophomore and a Senior starting on the same championship college football team as contemporaries. I would, YMMV.
-
As I recall the first Easy Eights were not in combat until well after D-Day, so most of a year behind the T-34/85. IIRC the gun on the T-34/85 was slightly better than the 76mm on the Easy Eight, correct?
-
As I recall the first Easy Eights were not in combat until well after D-Day, so most of a year behind the T-34/85. IIRC the gun on the T-34/85 was slightly better than the 76mm on the Easy Eight, correct?
The Easy Eights were not the only Shermans to use the 76mm gun. The M4A1s started being produced with 76mm guns in early '44. The 76mm gun used was the same one that was sported by the M10 tank destroyer.
In terms of armor penetration, I think the US 76mm and the Russian 85mm were very comparable (neither as good as the 17lbr on the Firefly). Where the Russian gun would definitely have an edge is in HE capability. The HE shell for the 76mm gun was fairly weak given its size, which is why the Shermans originally sported the 75mm. US doctrine was that the Shermans would support the infantry and the 76mm armed tank destroyers (M10s and the like) would handle enemy armor. In practice, this wasn't how things worked out, hence the eventual up-gunning of the Shermans to better combat German armor.
Here is a Wiki page on the 76mm vs 85mm. Must be a common hot topic. ;) So, granted it is Wiki, but it seems to be annotated with sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1
-
It is not a myth sherman armor in WWII was not very impressive until late in the war when the british upgraded the sherman to the "firefly" and the americans started production of the shreman "easy eight" model of the m4 sherman. But the 88 of the tiger and the 75mm on a panther could slice through a shermans armor with no problem at long range. I think in this game it might be the damage generator that is the main problem. Without researching the sherman armor prior to posting this I believe the armor on a sherman was about 2" or 3" max. On later models I am sure it was more but again the german guns like the 88 had no problem with it.
Kev, have you ever looked up any stats on how thick the armor on the Sherman is, or are you just repeating popular myth?
-
It is not a myth sherman armor in WWII was not very impressive until late in the war when the british upgraded the sherman to the "firefly" and the americans started production of the shreman "easy eight" model of the m4 sherman. But the 88 of the tiger and the 75mm on a panther could slice through a shermans armor with no problem at long range. I think in this game it might be the damage generator that is the main problem. Without researching the sherman armor prior to posting this I believe the armor on a sherman was about 2" or 3" max. On later models I am sure it was more but again the german guns like the 88 had no problem with it.
Well, you are part of the way there anyway. Let's see if we can move you along a bit.
In your original post you said:
Just like the current T34 we have it has good armor and speed.
Followed soon thereafter by:
Though the sherman has an upgunned package in the 17pdr it still had the fatal flaw of thin armor.
So, to bring it all together . . .
You are correct that the Sherman had 2" of front hull armor, which is 51mm. Guess what? The "good armor" on the T-34/76 you like so much was 45mm thick. Turrets, about 3", or 76mm on the Sherman. The "good armor" on the T-34/76 was 70mm.
So, whether you intended to or not, you echoed the "popular myth" that the Sherman had "paper thin" armor while the T-34's is "good," even though they are nearly identical.
-
So "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", ISBN-13: 978-0891418146, written by Lieutenant Cooper, who served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and was responsible for recovery and repair of Shermans, is apparently a total fantasy?
I'd give another reference that mentioned Sherman crew lifetimes were measured in days and ,with recovery and repair, each Sherman ate through many crews. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was so obviously it's untrue too.
-
Tank losses were high across the board on all sides.
Also don't forget the T34's hull armor was sloped very effectively.
-
I woud NOT want to fight in a Sherman.....Just a horrible tank......but....for its time.....it was pretty typical.
-
So "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", ISBN-13: 978-0891418146, written by Lieutenant Cooper, who served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and was responsible for recovery and repair of Shermans, is apparently a total fantasy?
I'd give another reference that mentioned Sherman crew lifetimes were measured in days and ,with recovery and repair, each Sherman ate through many crews. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was so obviously it's untrue too.
Death Traps is obviously very accurate but doesnt really address any of the issues here. The US was very ill equipped for the realities it faced immediately after D-day...
1) The entire doctrine called for an integrated combined arms approach vs enemy infantry. The terrain in Normandy created brutal conditions for the tanks on either side and alot of early US losses were due to infantry/AT not tank on tank...
2) As the US broke out the US doctrine on employment of the two US heavy Tank divisions (which is the #1 reason we actually won all the major tank battles) created a meatgrinder. The US focus on maintaining a brutal tempo of of engagement caused significant attrition on both sides...but generated tremendous losses. This in no way is a reflection of the shermans armor relative to the T-34, in fact if you look at german losses to shermans and american TD's during the battle of the bulge you'll actually see similiar attrition...in one engagment 2 US M-10's took out 17 panthers and tigers with no loss before withdrawing...as WW posted elsewhere an M-8 took out a tiger as well in the same broader engagement.
The shermans role as originally concieved did not involve tank on tank combat. Nobody really visualized Rommels "AT gun" forward defense or the utilization of a dual purpose 88 in that role. No tank (allied or axis) was mission capable at any time in the war agaisnt fully deployed weapons of that caliber. Even Tigers, JS-II's or pershings would fall to an undetected 88mm or similiar caliber AT weapon. The lack of a suitable gun tube made the "stock" sherman very unsuited to the role of agressor vs a fixed in depth defense...however the sherman actually did very well in fluid meeting engagments with enemy armor.
-
So "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", ISBN-13: 978-0891418146, written by Lieutenant Cooper, who served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and was responsible for recovery and repair of Shermans, is apparently a total fantasy?
I'd give another reference that mentioned Sherman crew lifetimes were measured in days and ,with recovery and repair, each Sherman ate through many crews. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was so obviously it's untrue too.
That's all very interesting but completely irrelevant to the point.
The T-34s were just as much dead meat to the Tigers and Panthers, yet you never hear people refer to them as "death traps," do you? Quite the contrary -- they are often lauded as the "best tanks of the war."
The double-standard is absolutely silly.
-
The difference in the T-34 armor was that it was sloped. The degree of the slope made the T34 very good as far as protection even though its armor may not have been as thick. Sloping armor even though thin can still protect just as good as thick armor. The germans produced the panther based off of captured T34's. Look at a panther and you see what the germans took from the T34. Now back to the sherman, the original M4 was no match for most german tanks fielded after 1943. The Panzer IV, as is in this game has the 75mm gun and it could take out a sherman easily but the sherman if it hit the panzer it was dead to. But the Panther and tiger could take a sherman hit and keep on truckin. The Easy 8 models had (without researchng) the same 76mm gun the M10 wolverine had and it was a good AT gun but armor was still not comparable to german tigers and panthers. The T34 was a good tank because it has speed, sloped armor, and after the T34/85 came out it had a decent gun, though not as good as the 88 or the german 75mm on the panther which had a high muzzle velocity.
Well, you are part of the way there anyway. Let's see if we can move you along a bit.
In your original post you said:
Followed soon thereafter by:
So, to bring it all together . . .
You are correct that the Sherman had 2" of front hull armor, which is 51mm. Guess what? The "good armor" on the T-34/76 you like so much was 45mm thick. Turrets, about 3", or 76mm on the Sherman. The "good armor" on the T-34/76 was 70mm.
So, whether you intended to or not, you echoed the "popular myth" that the Sherman had "paper thin" armor while the T-34's is "good," even though they are nearly identical.
-
All tanks have sloped armor, even the Sherman.
The German tanks were petrol powered, yet you don't hear of them being called 'Ronsons'.
A study done on Sherman casualties has one crew member being killed per tank taken out.
-
The t-34 was...nicely sloped...on the small turret especially.
-
I think it is a joke at how the T34 turret is made of cheese in AH2. One shot to the front of the turret and *poof* the turret is damaged and you now have an armored car with a 7.62 MG in the hull. I was taught the trick of "turning" the turrent to an incoming round, but that is even more of a joke. I'm not into gaming the game.
Lets hope the T34/85mm lives up to its name.
Oh... and I'll add this here instead of the PzrV thread: in this game the PzrV would own each and every other tank in the game. Due to the factors not able to be modeled into the game... the PzrV would be unstoppable. The T34 was not the best tank of the war when all things worked as they should have. 1v1 the PzrV ruled.
-
If Htc Is Going to Add The T34/85..Where Is The Panther...IIRC ..BTT..The T34/85 Rolled OnTo Field The Panthers Were On The Prowl :devil
-
The difference in the T-34 armor was that it was sloped. The degree of the slope made the T34 very good as far as protection even though its armor may not have been as thick. Sloping armor even though thin can still protect just as good as thick armor. The germans produced the panther based off of captured T34's. Look at a panther and you see what the germans took from the T34. Now back to the sherman, the original M4 was no match for most german tanks fielded after 1943. The Panzer IV, as is in this game has the 75mm gun and it could take out a sherman easily but the sherman if it hit the panzer it was dead to. But the Panther and tiger could take a sherman hit and keep on truckin. The Easy 8 models had (without researchng) the same 76mm gun the M10 wolverine had and it was a good AT gun but armor was still not comparable to german tigers and panthers. The T34 was a good tank because it has speed, sloped armor, and after the T34/85 came out it had a decent gun, though not as good as the 88 or the german 75mm on the panther which had a high muzzle velocity.
As MiloMorai points out, the armor on the front hull of the Sherman is also sloped, and gets a similar benefit.
Furthermore, the slope of armor certainly helps against smaller caliber weaponry, but is less effective against larger caliber shells. The same 37mm AT shells that so famously bounced off of the T-34s would have also bounced off of the Sherman -- although, unfortunately for the Americans, they encountered few weapons of that size vs. what the T-34s faced in '41-'42.
Take a look at this link (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/) (and hopefully the translator works because the original site is Russian). It is an interview with Soviet tanker Dmitriy Loza who wrote a book about his experiences using Lend-Lease Shermans in WWII. It is quite long, but well worth the read. Note his experiences and impressions of the Sherman and how sharply it contrasts to much of what you hear. A few of the relevant quotes:
Regarding the tendency to "cook off":
For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded . . . When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this? . . . Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
His impressions of the armor:
I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.
Regarding whether the US was slow to recognize any problems:
In general the American representative worked efficiently. Any deficiency that he observed and reported was quickly and effectively corrected.
And possibly the most relevant from the beginning of the interview:
When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?
This last quote of his sums up my feelings exactly. The primary complaint that the Sherman was a "bad tank" centers around the fact it could not compete against the German heavy tanks. Expecting any 30 ton tank to stand toe-to-toe to the 45 ton Panther or 55 ton Tiger is foolish -- but it does not mean the tank itself is "bad." It means it is a medium tank going against a heavy tank with predictable results. If your standard criteria for whether a tank is "bad" is whether it can fight toe-to-toe with a tank 50-75% larger than itself, then you will also have to relegate the T-34, PzkwIV, and every other medium tank to "bad tank" status.
-
E25280, even the side armor of the Sherman was sloped. ;) How many shots are perpendicular to the armor face?
SOP of the Tiger was to 'park' at an angle to the advance to give it's already heavy armor some slope.
-
Face hardened and cast armour are not directly comparable in thickness.
-C+