Pz III vs T 34 m40 tests results
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
Mikimoto, if you read my results, you will see that they shows that the IIIG is as deadly as the m40, and the IIIH even more so. So these results actually support your assumption. What I am trying to do here is to present non-bias, subjective results based on my tests. I don't know much about historical battle performance of these tanks, so I ma posting these results in order to get constructive discussion to occurs.
"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators."
Les Miserables
Les Miserables
-
richmonder
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Richmond, VA USA
- Contact:
Originally posted by lnp4668:
Mikimoto, if you read my results, you will see that they shows that the IIIG is as deadly as the m40, and the IIIH even more so. So these results actually support your assumption. What I am trying to do here is to present non-bias, subjective results based on my tests. I don't know much about historical battle performance of these tanks, so I ma posting these results in order to get constructive discussion to occurs.
Hello Inp668.
I said the results are historically a "fraud" not your testing, or you... at 500mts, the PzIIIG 50L42 gun coudn't penetrate a T-34 frontally, but the 76.2 gun could penetrate that and other better armoured PzIII models at 1000mts. And your test prove something is wrong.
Another point that amazes me is when somebody talks about up-armoured and up-gunned state of the art PzIII and PzIV models against the "older" T-34 design. The T-34 was a new model in 1941. In this case, much more modern that its German counterparts, PzIII and IV, and if it was not so uparmoured/upgunned it was because it was effective enough until Tigers and Panthers entered in scene.
Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
It's kinda funny though.Originally posted by Mikimoto:
at 500mts, the PzIIIG 50L42 gun coudn't penetrate a T-34 frontally, but the 76.2 gun could penetrate that and other better armoured PzIII models at 1000mts. And your test prove something is wrong.
Another point that amazes me is when somebody talks about up-armoured and up-gunned state of the art PzIII and PzIV models against the "older" T-34 design. The T-34 was a new model in 1941. In this case, much more modern that its German counterparts, PzIII and IV, and if it was not so uparmoured/upgunned it was because it was effective enough until Tigers and Panthers entered in scene.
It's almost the same people that object to the T-34 as an formidable weapon, that consider the Tiger an Omnipotent weapon, despite the fact that each was arguably superior to all other tanks for a period.
"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
The data presented all around is very helpful. I've been in contactt with Lorrin and he modified some data in the book such as high hardness modifiers based on subsequent reserch. I also found a bug in the APCR code. Both things will get fixed.
T-34s were not invincible, but were tough targets. German tests show 50L42 couldnot penetrat the fornt hull. That is reflected in the game (barring a vulnerable loacation hit) but the turret was vulnerable.
Data for German tests and analysis by Lorrin:
I present this data not saying that the game is perfectly correct as it stands, form the beginning I have said modidfications were being looked into. The data can be somewhat contradictory. And qualitative reports tend to be enterpreted absolutely when they are not absolute.
T-34s were not invincible, but were tough targets. German tests show 50L42 couldnot penetrat the fornt hull. That is reflected in the game (barring a vulnerable loacation hit) but the turret was vulnerable.
Data for German tests and analysis by Lorrin:
Note also that tests of 37mm against the side armor of T-34s indicated:did a worst case analysis for the 50mm APC modifier against 45mm high hardness plate.
If 50mm APC fails against T34 armor with effective resistances of 128, 130, 133, 139, 140, 140 and 141 during 95% of the tests, and succeeds against 149mm resistance on 1-in-1000 shots, the modifier for 50mm APC would be 0.91.
So, at worst, the 50mm APC high hardness multiplier against 45mm T34 armor is 0.91. Use that in your game and you'll be conservative.
In the German tests of 50mm APC, failures occurred against effective resistances of 128, 130, 133, 139, 140, 140 and 141, and the shot succeeded against 149 resistance, where the resistances represent thickness modified by slope effect. Hardness multipliers were then applied based on plate thickness and a different model from what the book presents.
SO there was a chance given favorable encounter geometry for a 37mm to penetrate the side of a T-34 based on German testing. The problem is it is a low probability attack.The German tests against T34 like armor during 1942 included 37mm AP ammunition
against plate of various thicknesses and at a variety of angles (100m range).
The interesting aspect of the tests is the ability of 37mm AP to completely
penetrate 53mm plates that exceed 400 Brinell Hardness. One of the premises
behind the use of high hardness plate and castings is the increase in resistance
that should occur when the plate thickness exceeds projectile diameter.
42.1mm
3 failures at 40 degrees
2 failures and 1 success at 35 degrees
43.2mm
1 failure at 38.5 degrees
2 penetrations and 3 defeats at 30 degrees
40.9mm
penetration at 25 degrees
2 failures at 30 degrees
40.6mm
1 success at 35 degrees
47.2mm
3 failures at 20 degrees
1 success and 2 defeats at 15 degrees
47.1mm
2 successes and 1 failure at 19 degrees
47.7mm
1 failure at 15 degrees
2 successes and 1 failure at 10 degrees
53.0mm
1 failure at 9 degrees
1 success and 1 defeat at 4 degrees
53.3mm
2 defeats at 9 degrees
1 success at 4 degrees
45.8mm
1 success and 1 defeat at 21 degrees
1 success at 16 degrees
51.9mm
1 success at 10.5 degrees
50.4mm
1 success and 1 failure at 14 degrees
I present this data not saying that the game is perfectly correct as it stands, form the beginning I have said modidfications were being looked into. The data can be somewhat contradictory. And qualitative reports tend to be enterpreted absolutely when they are not absolute.
I for one certainly respect and appreciate both your drive to make WAW a better, more accurate game as well as to listen to our rants and act on them in the days that have followed 7.0's debut Paul.
I think in the end it comes down to the small but sometimes not so subtle differences between "test data" and real life experience.
More importantly, in the case of WAW, its 'game experience'
Right or wrong on the test data, the result of the small Russian OOB modifications have made, IMVHO, the T-34 too vulnerable to the Panzer III and it's short barreled 50mm gun. True, as you said, the front sloped hull of the 34 remains all but invulnerable to non-APCR attack, all fine and great, but it has produced these undesirable results as well, mainly
1) a greatly increased frontal turret vulnerablity to plain ordinary AP (Pzgr39)
2) a greatly increased flank sensitivity to that same ordinary AP (and i might add, the AP of even 37mm guns) A sensitivity i measure by the fact that even at longer combat ranges (well beyond 500 yards), a short barrelled 50 can take out a 34. (37mm at closer range, around 350 - 400 yards)
In relating to real life commentary, i've never seen the 34's armor and slope factor praise restricted to the frontal arc, nor have i seen commentary suggesting to German gunners to aim for the turret because it's penetrable at regular combat ranges (they do say aim for the turret to cause a turret ring jam though). Were that the case i dont feel the tank would have made as big an impact as it did. I would akin it more to simple "complaint level" rumblings from the soldiers like when the face hardened aplique version Panzer III's debuted in the desert leading to British tanker complaints. They did'nt panic, they simply complained that it was now very difficult to knock out a Mark III *frontally* at standard ranges (i.e. 500 yards)
Since the tank retained it's thinner non face hardened slab sided flanks, there was an obvious solution to the problem.
This reaction, the T-34 did not create, commentary revolving around it's armor spoke in general of it's fine sloped sides as well as the front of the tank which combined with it's speed, mobility and firepower made it, for the time, a enemy tanker's nightmare.
This is not happening in WAW anymore ala ver 7.0. I can attest to this since i'm playing ALOT of Soviet vs German right now and can see the differences.
Am i arguing or saying that the T-34 should be an uber tank? Hell NO! To be honest such accusations piss the hell out of me. Do the accusers not play WAW? If they did they'd realize that such statements are poppycock.
In 6.1, i'd already learned to not underestimate the Mark III, even the short barreled version. Get under 500 yards and even without the recent downgrading of RUssian armor, APCR could give you turret nightmares.
Allow a Mark III to get under 250 yards - 300 yards and watch out for your flanks...even against regular AP.
My tactics had already begun to mirror real life accounts as a result....aka, i try to engage Mark III's from around 1000 yards to no less than 700 yards. Accounts say farther, but with the T-34m42's Range finder # ,and with limited/reduced ammo on, a careless player quickly finds his AP running out for little gain as even high experienced Russians (but marred with less than expert tank commanders as is the case in my campaign) seldom get good solutions beyond 1100 yards.
Now? forget about it.....i dont fear T-34's anymore, i fear short barreled Mark III's!! my flanks are as vulnerable as a slab sided German or British cruiser tank, and my mantlet vulnerability dictates i try to fight at ranges only the Germans are good at in the year indicated.
Another argument for those who accuse people of wanting T-34's marked as uber-tanks. Compare my experiences with 6.1 with earlier SP incarnations, or even V5 SPWWII!. There was your 'uber tank' T-34's in earlier incarnations were virtually super tanks to which a Mark III's only option for defeating them was to rout them with mass fire.
Now? while that is still the prime option, with the recent tweaks up to 6.1, that is no longer the "sole" option. In other words the T-34 even before 7.0 was hardly invulnerable. Add to that the possibility of system damages (like main gun disablement even in a non pen hit), suspension disablement, and of course, the very well implemented vulnerable hit location factor, and like with most tanks, you take your chances just showing your T-34 on a ridge like a Tiger and accept hit after hit thinking your invulnerable
Your not...believe me.
Besides which, in the end, this period of superiority for the T-34 wanes fast, the 'uber-tank' will soon face longer barreled 50mm weapons which can produced the results we now see the 50L42 accomplishing in 7.0, but most importantly, we will soon see the debut of the long barreled 75mm which was IMO, the historical full counter to the T-34 (and the KV) 6.1 shows this well enough, more so now with the recent downgrading of the Russian AP found for the T-34.
The 'game experience' i'm getting now is, what was all the panic about? The T-34 was disturbing but the Mark III could still handle it. Why the rush to rechamber captured Russian 76.2mm guns to fire German 75mm AP? why the rush to convert the slew of remaining Mark I and Mark II chasis to makeshift tank destroyers? Why Hitler's fury at finding his order to rearm the Mark III with the L60 was ignored? And lastly, why the rush to refurbish the Mark IV to sport a long barreled 75?
Lastly, add to the sometimes contrary data about Russian armor quality (I WISH i could find that online web site with the US Aberdeen study of a T-34/76b.....they felt the armor was good quality), and the fact that some major Russian tanks did not suffer high hardness factors (KV!, possibly later model IS-2m and IS-3), i cant see a justification to ding the entire Russian OOB and respectfully submit that it should be removed.
For the record i dont see a problem with the Russian AP downgrade, since there seems ample evidience of this and does'nt really affect the T-34 and KV's ability to deal with early and midwar Mark III's and IV's.
I also dont see a problem with the frontal upgrades to the German armor but do hold a reservation on the flanks. Face hardened armor was only employed in the frontal glasis, not the sides.
But in trying to bring modern Russian armor more 'down to earth' so to speak? I think WAW does that enough already without their armor stats having to be dinged.
[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]</p>
I think in the end it comes down to the small but sometimes not so subtle differences between "test data" and real life experience.
More importantly, in the case of WAW, its 'game experience'
Right or wrong on the test data, the result of the small Russian OOB modifications have made, IMVHO, the T-34 too vulnerable to the Panzer III and it's short barreled 50mm gun. True, as you said, the front sloped hull of the 34 remains all but invulnerable to non-APCR attack, all fine and great, but it has produced these undesirable results as well, mainly
1) a greatly increased frontal turret vulnerablity to plain ordinary AP (Pzgr39)
2) a greatly increased flank sensitivity to that same ordinary AP (and i might add, the AP of even 37mm guns) A sensitivity i measure by the fact that even at longer combat ranges (well beyond 500 yards), a short barrelled 50 can take out a 34. (37mm at closer range, around 350 - 400 yards)
In relating to real life commentary, i've never seen the 34's armor and slope factor praise restricted to the frontal arc, nor have i seen commentary suggesting to German gunners to aim for the turret because it's penetrable at regular combat ranges (they do say aim for the turret to cause a turret ring jam though). Were that the case i dont feel the tank would have made as big an impact as it did. I would akin it more to simple "complaint level" rumblings from the soldiers like when the face hardened aplique version Panzer III's debuted in the desert leading to British tanker complaints. They did'nt panic, they simply complained that it was now very difficult to knock out a Mark III *frontally* at standard ranges (i.e. 500 yards)
Since the tank retained it's thinner non face hardened slab sided flanks, there was an obvious solution to the problem.
This reaction, the T-34 did not create, commentary revolving around it's armor spoke in general of it's fine sloped sides as well as the front of the tank which combined with it's speed, mobility and firepower made it, for the time, a enemy tanker's nightmare.
This is not happening in WAW anymore ala ver 7.0. I can attest to this since i'm playing ALOT of Soviet vs German right now and can see the differences.
Am i arguing or saying that the T-34 should be an uber tank? Hell NO! To be honest such accusations piss the hell out of me. Do the accusers not play WAW? If they did they'd realize that such statements are poppycock.
In 6.1, i'd already learned to not underestimate the Mark III, even the short barreled version. Get under 500 yards and even without the recent downgrading of RUssian armor, APCR could give you turret nightmares.
Allow a Mark III to get under 250 yards - 300 yards and watch out for your flanks...even against regular AP.
My tactics had already begun to mirror real life accounts as a result....aka, i try to engage Mark III's from around 1000 yards to no less than 700 yards. Accounts say farther, but with the T-34m42's Range finder # ,and with limited/reduced ammo on, a careless player quickly finds his AP running out for little gain as even high experienced Russians (but marred with less than expert tank commanders as is the case in my campaign) seldom get good solutions beyond 1100 yards.
Now? forget about it.....i dont fear T-34's anymore, i fear short barreled Mark III's!! my flanks are as vulnerable as a slab sided German or British cruiser tank, and my mantlet vulnerability dictates i try to fight at ranges only the Germans are good at in the year indicated.
Another argument for those who accuse people of wanting T-34's marked as uber-tanks. Compare my experiences with 6.1 with earlier SP incarnations, or even V5 SPWWII!. There was your 'uber tank' T-34's in earlier incarnations were virtually super tanks to which a Mark III's only option for defeating them was to rout them with mass fire.
Now? while that is still the prime option, with the recent tweaks up to 6.1, that is no longer the "sole" option. In other words the T-34 even before 7.0 was hardly invulnerable. Add to that the possibility of system damages (like main gun disablement even in a non pen hit), suspension disablement, and of course, the very well implemented vulnerable hit location factor, and like with most tanks, you take your chances just showing your T-34 on a ridge like a Tiger and accept hit after hit thinking your invulnerable
Your not...believe me.
Besides which, in the end, this period of superiority for the T-34 wanes fast, the 'uber-tank' will soon face longer barreled 50mm weapons which can produced the results we now see the 50L42 accomplishing in 7.0, but most importantly, we will soon see the debut of the long barreled 75mm which was IMO, the historical full counter to the T-34 (and the KV) 6.1 shows this well enough, more so now with the recent downgrading of the Russian AP found for the T-34.
The 'game experience' i'm getting now is, what was all the panic about? The T-34 was disturbing but the Mark III could still handle it. Why the rush to rechamber captured Russian 76.2mm guns to fire German 75mm AP? why the rush to convert the slew of remaining Mark I and Mark II chasis to makeshift tank destroyers? Why Hitler's fury at finding his order to rearm the Mark III with the L60 was ignored? And lastly, why the rush to refurbish the Mark IV to sport a long barreled 75?
Lastly, add to the sometimes contrary data about Russian armor quality (I WISH i could find that online web site with the US Aberdeen study of a T-34/76b.....they felt the armor was good quality), and the fact that some major Russian tanks did not suffer high hardness factors (KV!, possibly later model IS-2m and IS-3), i cant see a justification to ding the entire Russian OOB and respectfully submit that it should be removed.
For the record i dont see a problem with the Russian AP downgrade, since there seems ample evidience of this and does'nt really affect the T-34 and KV's ability to deal with early and midwar Mark III's and IV's.
I also dont see a problem with the frontal upgrades to the German armor but do hold a reservation on the flanks. Face hardened armor was only employed in the frontal glasis, not the sides.
But in trying to bring modern Russian armor more 'down to earth' so to speak? I think WAW does that enough already without their armor stats having to be dinged.
[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]</p>
Hello Penetrator.Originally posted by Penetrator:
Just ran through a test on the KV tank. In this discussion it has been overshadowed by the T-34:
50mmL42 vs KV-1 m40, 90deg side, range 5 hexes (250 metres). 67 bounces, 20 penetrations.
Yes, it occurs in v7. This is from:
http://history.vif2.ru/kv1.html
At the beginning of the Great Partiotic War the Red Army possessed 639 KV-1 tanks. In 1941 the KV-1 heavy tank was able to destroy any German tank. There are some accounts when a single KV-1 tank delayed whole German armies for days.
A single KV-1 made a stand near a road not far from Ostrov (Baltic states) and delayed the whole German tank army.
The battle casualties: 7 German tanks, an anti-tank battery, one 88 mm AA-gun and all it crew, 4 halftracks "Hanomag", and 12 trucks. This tank was destroyed on the next day with German 88 mm AA-gun. The KV-1 tank could be destroyed only with 88 mm heavy AA-guns or with 105 mm howitzers. The 105 mm howitzer couldn't penetrate the KV's armor but could immobilize it with a track hit.
However, most KV's weren't destroyed by enemy, they were lost because of technical failures and abandoned by their crews because of a lack of repair time. Here is a report from the commander of the 10th Tank Division, 15th Mechanized Corps: "We have lost 56 tanks in total (of 63 tanks - Valera) where 11 tanks were knocked out in battle, 11 lost without a trace, and 34 were abandoned by their crews due to technical failures".
In the 8th Tank Division, 43 tanks (of 50 tanks total) were lost, where 13 were destroyed in battles, 2 sunk in swamp, and 28 were abandoned due to breakdowns.
Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Forgot to say, the trial above was AP only.
Some more trial by fire. This time the Pz3 is the victim:
Pz3g shot at by F-34, AP only, 90deg front, range 20 hexes (1000 m):
0 bounces, 10 penetrations, pretty conclusive.
Same for Pz3h:
42 bounces, 19 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same for Pz3j:
31 bounces, 11 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 15 hexes (750 m):
39 bounces, 14 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 10 hexes (500 m):
44 bounces, 12 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 7 hexes (350 m):
13 bounces, 10 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 5 hexes (250 m):
25 bounces, 15 penetrations, still all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 3 hexes (150 m):
30 bounces, 29 penetrations, thereof 22 penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
So even at 150 metres the T-34 cannot reliably penetrate Pz3h. At that range it is easily outmaneuvered, and even a tank with just one APCR round can be pretty confident of taking it out. This strikes a hollow note compared to the near universal T-34 tactic of standing off at about 1000 meters, although it still has an edge at that range.
Some more trial by fire. This time the Pz3 is the victim:
Pz3g shot at by F-34, AP only, 90deg front, range 20 hexes (1000 m):
0 bounces, 10 penetrations, pretty conclusive.
Same for Pz3h:
42 bounces, 19 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same for Pz3j:
31 bounces, 11 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 15 hexes (750 m):
39 bounces, 14 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 10 hexes (500 m):
44 bounces, 12 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 7 hexes (350 m):
13 bounces, 10 penetrations, all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 5 hexes (250 m):
25 bounces, 15 penetrations, still all penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
Same as above, Pz3h 3 hexes (150 m):
30 bounces, 29 penetrations, thereof 22 penetrations turret or vulnerable hits.
So even at 150 metres the T-34 cannot reliably penetrate Pz3h. At that range it is easily outmaneuvered, and even a tank with just one APCR round can be pretty confident of taking it out. This strikes a hollow note compared to the near universal T-34 tactic of standing off at about 1000 meters, although it still has an edge at that range.
Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.
It clouds your judgement.
-
Frank W.
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
- Contact:
mmhhh..after reading this threads about this topic i decided to stay with 6.1
i was quite pleased with that version.
i did made some tests w/ 6.1,too.
i have no excact numbers,but i think that
PZ III G or H (the same 50 / 42 ) gun have
very low chances in taking out a t34 at ranges
above 10 hexes with frontal hits.....some % lower
the chance for kv1.
50mm pak (better gun than the L42) had quite okay
chances for t34 but bad with kv1,too.
there is a weapon that was forgotten in the discussion,i think: the 47mm gun from the jagdpanzer1 which lies just between the 50 L42
and the 50mm PAK. quite good for killing a t34
at near distance....
but, the 50L42 and of course all 37mm weapons are
almost useless against the russian heavies,EXCEPT very lucky hits or very low distance.
so this reflects the reality (IMHO) very good.
the great drawback w/ the 1941 russian tanks is the low hit chance after moving even 1 hex. the german´s are 2-3 times better than russians.
so germans HAVE a chance with the 50 L42: the more hits on the russian the more suppression it gets (even with no damage) and not to forget: my tests showed,that the KV series was quite vulnerable to damage at the suspension and the coax or main gun. so even if germans can not destroy the tank they can slowly make it unusable...
i think this is absolutely okay, which leads me further to my decision to stay with 6.1 version.
i was quite pleased with that version.
i did made some tests w/ 6.1,too.
i have no excact numbers,but i think that
PZ III G or H (the same 50 / 42 ) gun have
very low chances in taking out a t34 at ranges
above 10 hexes with frontal hits.....some % lower
the chance for kv1.
50mm pak (better gun than the L42) had quite okay
chances for t34 but bad with kv1,too.
there is a weapon that was forgotten in the discussion,i think: the 47mm gun from the jagdpanzer1 which lies just between the 50 L42
and the 50mm PAK. quite good for killing a t34
at near distance....
but, the 50L42 and of course all 37mm weapons are
almost useless against the russian heavies,EXCEPT very lucky hits or very low distance.
so this reflects the reality (IMHO) very good.
the great drawback w/ the 1941 russian tanks is the low hit chance after moving even 1 hex. the german´s are 2-3 times better than russians.
so germans HAVE a chance with the 50 L42: the more hits on the russian the more suppression it gets (even with no damage) and not to forget: my tests showed,that the KV series was quite vulnerable to damage at the suspension and the coax or main gun. so even if germans can not destroy the tank they can slowly make it unusable...
i think this is absolutely okay, which leads me further to my decision to stay with 6.1 version.
I suggest you repeat your tests but with several different experience and/or morale values. For example with experience 60, 80, and 120. Maybe experience won't effect the outcome much but you never know. As far as we know these test results only apply to crews with experience 100, you have to get a better sample.
I was playing around with some tank battles and seems to me the German tanks have so many more shots that it equalizes things, of course the Russians were far less experienced, too. I'm not sure if should be penetrating the T-34's from ranges beyond 200 meters though - I guess thats what all you WW2 experts are for!
I was playing around with some tank battles and seems to me the German tanks have so many more shots that it equalizes things, of course the Russians were far less experienced, too. I'm not sure if should be penetrating the T-34's from ranges beyond 200 meters though - I guess thats what all you WW2 experts are for!