Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Originally posted by BryanMelvin:
[The Too hit and Ballistics are more real life when playing against the AI and Human vs Human playing is far best![/QB]
well the Russian Military Zone does admit that the Germans gained their gun power primary from the excellence and high velocity of their ammo, while the Russians were forced to upsize their gun barrels in order to compete. (hence the use of 76.2mm, while the "norm" of the time was more between 37-50mm, then to 85mm to match the high velocity 75mm of the German, finally to the 100 and 122mm guns to compete with the deadly 88 through sheer brute force (the 100mm is a partial exception to this))Originally posted by Mikimoto:
Give me one source, other than Lorrin, that states PzIII had more gun punch that T-34, please.
That's it !Originally posted by Galka:
I own the book but cannot find any reference to a 50mm gun penetrating more than 56mm of armour @30 degrees at 1000 yards.
This say's it all.Originally posted by Nikademus:
I just recalled something else that probably should be mentioned.
When bereft of APCR ammo, both versions of the 50mm will be hard pressed to penetrate the T-34 along it's still formidably well sloped front "Hull" Though the recent 'balistical' adjustment shaved off a good 25-30mm worth of equiv zero degree armor thickness, the average result still falls around 106-110mm of equiv armor. Unless a "vulnerable location" hit is scored, simming a hit on the machine gun mantlet, the driver's plate or just a plain flaw in the armor itself, both guns, even with their upgraded stats cant punch through the armor as they peak at 77 and 97mm respectively assuming a near perpendicular shot.
That leaves only the special and rarer APCR rounds which even then might still skip off thanks to the slope and WAW's excellent detail level.
Thus, only the less well sloped frontal turrets remain vulnerable. True you can argue 50% chance of hitting (and pen) the turret is alot but keep in mind the historical precedence. The Germans needed a gun that could effectively take out a 34 (or a KV, which all around remains very tough for the Pz-III series to take without special ammo) at a longer range and with a far more effective chance than meerly 50% (or less).
'Thats' the reason why the 50mm, and the Mark III eventually lost it's role as MBT in the German army, not because the 50mm was 'totally' ineffective against uber T-34 and KV tanks, but because it was'nt "effective enough" to give the Germans a comfortable margin of superiority. In fact it was the opposite, at least until the advent of much more heavily armored varients like the Ausf M for the Mark III and the Aufs G and H for the Mark IV. In the case of the Pz-III all that additional armor benefited the Germans little if the tank gun they carried required them to get as close as 400yards or less for their gun to have a decent frontal arc chance to knock out a 34.
The Germans needed a far more effective balance tipper, and found it in the form of the uparmored and upgunned Mark IV, regaining for them battlefield superiority at least in straight shoot out terms, especially if the Germans were on the defense, which by 43 they were more and more on with the sole exception of the Kursk offensive.
A tank of course is not simply gun and armor though, its also mobility and reliability. The T-34 still retains it's mobility edge which neither the Mark III or IV could ever fully match, which again is the reason for the genesis of the Mark V...a tank purpose built to beat the T-34 in all three major catagories, Mobility, firepower, and protection.
So has the T-34 and KV really been disadvantaged? or simply brought down to earth so to speak?
there remain some questions about the downgraded gun stats i'll admit. What would help here is some data from the best real life example we have, Kursk, both historical and player data from the Kursk scenerio. How are Tigers being knocked out? Pz-III's IV's? Is it soley through luck or APCR? or can the 34's at least compete at close range? or against the flanks of the tanks?
And of the III's and IV's present, how many were the uparmored beasts like the M and H varients? only those particular's would give the 34 big problems with it's basic ammo. (even at 200yards a Pz IVh is very tough for a 76to punch through)
Add Tiger's and worse, Panthers to the mix and now the Russians found themselves in the German's position from 41 through a good portion of 42, faced with enemy tank types that increasingly made the main gun of their entire tank arm ineffective requireing the use of mass to overcome it.
Enter the T-34/85, the answer to the Mark IV upgrades and to a lesser extent the Tiger and Panther. The 85mm revitalized a nearly 3.5 - 4 year old tank design (old in terms of actual warfare) and allowed the tank to re-take on the still primary battle tank of the German army at standard to long battle ranges on equal terms more or less (Mark IV), and even gave it a chance against the Tiger with it's formidably thick but reletively unsloped hide. (which considering the Tiger is a heavy tank, meant to fight other heavy tanks does'nt speak ill of the T-34, the real answer to a heavy like the Tiger is another heavy! (IS series)
Panther was more of a problem in a way, with it's thick 'and' well sloped glasis but at there's a bonus at least. It's a big tank which presents a potentially big flank shot easily penetrable by the new 85.
So the Germans even with 7.0 ar'nt uber at least. Tougher, yes, but not uber.
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
I'm probably not up to snuff on when technically one tank was a stop-gap, given my description of stop-gap, and when another was not, and I don't regard the PZIVH in such majestic terms either. Despite any prejudices which may have crept in, I've always considered the PZIVH as just a tank that evolved a bit and wasn't stop-gap necessarily, for one thing because it always up-armored and used the same gun. The T34/85 on the other hand did not up-armor and put in a larger gun, which to me qualifies as stop-gap, because it's my belief that it was built strictly as reaction to the Tiger. Maybe it's just my screwy logic, but to me a basic medium tank taking on a gun larger than 82mm is usually a stop-gap tank. True, the PZIVH was a reaction tank, it's just that it reacted "all the way around". So you see where I'm coming from? As I said, maybe it's screwy, but to me a medium or light tank assuming a gun uncharacteristicly large of the type, with very little or no armor upgrading is my definition of stop-gap (with of course the prerequisite of something coming along before it that was outclassing it considerably). Both the PZIVH and T34/85 were pretty much workhorses (although Panthers were produced in larger numbers once they got started) it's just that I regard the T34/85 as more stop-gap if you follow my logic.I would'nt go so far as to call the T-34/85 a "stopgap" anything. I mean, noone calls the Pz-IVH a stop-gap tank with it's potent new 75mm gun and uparmored snout. Instead its praisingly called the "backbone" of the Panzer divisions.
In large part I agree. Where we differ is though the KVs wereup-gunned in reaction as well, I don't consider it stop-gap, because it did up-armor along with the gun,plus heavy tanks having 82mm or larger got to be fairly common. The T34/85 was even more stop-gap than most tanks I can thing of "because" it was a reaction to a class of tank that was in a heavier class (gunwise). How many medium tanks had 82mm or larger guns? Sure the PZIVH may had pierced quite a few KVs, and so the stop-gap was addressed with the same shell size, but it didn't step outside the boundaries that were fairly common for the type. Even the Panther, definitely a reaction tank, wasn't so much stop-gap as I see it, because it was an entirely new design, and also because though the gun was awesome, it didn't get larger than was common for a medium class tank. I hope I'm making sense here.As for taking on the Tiger. The new 34 was an attempt to address the "overall" problem plauging the Russian army in having the same aging and increasingly ineffective main tank gun arming both it's medium and heavy tanks. The KV-85 i'd call a stopgap since what the Russians needed for their own heavy tank was a bigger gun than a medium could carry, like the Tiger. Too, i always found it puzzeling that a medium tank like the 34 keeps always getting compared to the heavy tank Tiger. The two were in different leagues and in different catagories
The 85mm was powerful enough though to keep even a heavy tank like the Tiger honest in it's dealings. No more ignoring the laws of tank tactics for that particular
You couldn't be more grossly wrong, on where I'm coming from, in fact a lot of people would sooner call me anti-American (or pro-German) than what you called me. I have no doubt that American ground forces didn't do all that much in comparison to the USSR, but how that makes the 76mm anything but a broad-sweeping generaliztion with no basis in fact, against the Tiger armor, is beyond me.Where do I say I expect parity between the T34/85 and the Tiger? Really expecting miracles of the USSR 76mm? It was that "silly" gun and others Soviet designs that defeated the 80% of German men and resources.. Your posture is pure American Chouvinism, you can't believe others did the long, real and hard job... hahaha
Originally posted by Charles_22:
Nikademus:
. I hope I'm making sense here.
[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]
As Finn I must be grateful for uncle Stalin for "purifying" his high general staff just pre WW2 <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">Originally posted by Panzer Leo:
You're absolutely right, Miki. And it was also the well trained Russian infantry-man, relying on his months and years of practicing in the worlds highest regarded infantry schools, who send the Germans back to Berlin. He was lead by NCO's full of wisdom and infantry tactics, just beaten by the glorious junior officers, the inventors of the most complex battle tactics the world had seen sofar...ofcourse, if it was not like this, how could they ever have beaten the Germans ?
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Well, yeah, the PZIV isn't the purest example, especially considering that it was intended originally as infantry support, but OTOH, gamewise, before the 37mm was given more penetration, it was the best tank against other tanks, because the penetration was comparable to the others, while the shell size was DOUBLE the others. A lot of first hits for the PZIV in those years come out as kills, instead of the usual picking away the others do.I see what your saying about the T-34, though i still must disagree. For one, the Pz-IV example you cited, while the gun "size" did indeed stay the same still recieved what was essentially a completely new gun, one purpose built to defeat heavy enemy tank armor wheras the previous KwK had been express designed for close support of infantry with but a nominal anti tank capability added in.
