dumb question: what's H2H??

[Gallo Rojo]

PS: I have attached a picture of the SU-100 on the previous post ... but I don't know if is visible or not

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Gallo Rojo


You're right. My mistake.

I took a closer look to your version and I come with new questions

1) Russian T-34 tanks don't have APCR ammo until september. Why is this? Is is historicaly accurate? ... First T-34 with APCR ammo in H2H is a T-34m43 model that appears in september... is it a m43 different from the other m43? (I mean, in other aspects appart from havin APCR ammo. I know that there were many variations withing the "standar" m43 (the one that Germans called "MikyMouse", but is this "september T-34m43" one of those variants?)

2) I find a mistake in one of your pictures in Soviet OOB. Is one of the SU-85 (you have two SU-85, isn't it?). Well, the unit is a SU-85 but the picture corresponds to a SU-100. Picture I'm talking about is one where you can see a column (actually you picture only shows two vehicles) of SU rolling at one snowed road. The SU ahead has one crew man (the commander, I guess) stand out one of the hatches. Well, as far as I now, this is not a SU-85, is a SU-100 in east prussia. Tank number is "281". If you look carefully you may see the this round little turret on the right side of the vehicle (this turret that both T-34/85 and SU-100). I really know the unit, in fact, I build this tank in 1/35 scale

3) According with penetration tables in your version, soviet 72.6mm gun can only penetrate 78mm of armour plate at 10 hex or less ... But I have been done some test and T-34/76 actually can take a Tiger (82mm armour plate on rear and side) at 6-5 hex of distance ... and I think that I'm not all killing shots were "vulnerable location hits" ... I think that is historically acurate that a T-34/76 could take a Tiger at 300 mts by rear or side ... but I don't understadn why according to the penetration tables this is not possible (althougth it is -both in the game as was possible in the reality)

I like very much your version


Best
Gallo

1) As with all nations, the APCR load was completely redone in H2H, to fit more historical amounts. Russian data is hard to come by, but according to what I could find, the first real use of APCR ammo in relevant numbers was at Kursk, mainly for 45mm AT-guns. It took a while for the T-34/76 to catch up and get APCR ammo, but as the T-34/85 reached the battlefield, this ammo became more frequent. T-34/76 m43 is no different from it's brother, except for a few APCR shots - but these shots make the difference in killing a Tiger or not...

2) The pic is wrong, but you're not right also
The tank in the snow is a SU-85M - a SU-100 with a 85mm gun...but I mixed it up with the regular SU-85 pic...

3) Was your T-34/76 killing the Tiger without a vulnerable location hit the m43 with APCR ? Otherwise it should be about impossible to crack the Tiger with the rather weak 76mm, when not hitting a good spot...

BTW...yeah, I could see the pic - good model !

have fun

[Charles2222]

I just downloaded H2H as a seperate game yesterday. All seems fine except for onr thing so far. The Russian WWII campaign crashes to the desktop and totally screws up the desktop resolution (it's changed to something like 100X100). I tried starting it in 12/40 instead and the same thig occurred. If I didn't want to play as the USSR, which I do, I still worry about if I campaign as another nation and end up having to fight them if it'll crash too.

Any ideas on how to stop the crash? I've tried GE and BR so far and neither crashes. I think the USSR crashes after I pick my core, but it certainly never gets into deployment. Thanks.

BTW, my previous version of 7.1 was slightly modified to my designs, though I didn't even touch the USSR.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Charles_22
I just downloaded H2H as a seperate game yesterday. All seems fine except for onr thing so far. The Russian WWII campaign crashes to the desktop and totally screws up the desktop resolution (it's changed to something like 100X100). I tried starting it in 12/40 instead and the same thig occurred. If I didn't want to play as the USSR, which I do, I still worry about if I campaign as another nation and end up having to fight them if it'll crash too.

Any ideas on how to stop the crash? I've tried GE and BR so far and neither crashes. I think the USSR crashes after I pick my core, but it certainly never gets into deployment. Thanks.

BTW, my previous version of 7.1 was slightly modified to my designs, though I didn't even touch the USSR.

Hmmm...I had a Russian campaign crash also, but after I played around with the date (changing month, too), it never happened again and even if restarting SPWAW, the Russian campaign went flawless...maybe if you play with the dates a bit more, it gets corrected also...
I have no idea, why this occurrs, nor do I know if this is H2H specific or also in v7.1 - I didn't touch anything concerning these campaigns and especially on the Russian side nothing related to campaigns changed...
Maybe someone experienced this, too - on 7.1 or H2H ?

[Charles2222]

Panzer Leo: Thanks for the reply, but I'm quite sure I've seen others post about that problem with the USSR. I believe I tried it a couple of times with the start date as 7/39 or something, and then it naturally shifts to 12/40 as the first battle (I do that because in SPWW2 the USSR fights in Poland as well). The last attempt, as I said, I shifted the start date to 12/40 and after the core selection it crashes again. It's failed every single time. From the looks of things I doubt it'll work if I go as far forward as 6/41, but I'll probably give it a try.

I'm reassured somewhat that somebody has played campaigns and it not crash, but whether somebody has campaigned with the USSR as the opponent, and it not crash, remains to be seen. At least at this point the campaign is letting you pick the core before it crashes, but if it does the same thing when the AI picks forces there's a problem, although I think it fair to say that the AI may not have such a thing as a core, but only picks one entire force.

[Charles2222]

I got home and fired up a USSR campaign starting 6/41. It worked. Scratching my head and thinking maybe there's a tooth fairy factor involved, I decided to fire off the same campaign as I did yesterday, that is, with the earliest possible starting time. Hmm, it worked. That was only a test though and I didn't waste time picking units with care, so I fired it up again with care taken for unit selection and it worked again. Maybe there's a first day break-in period for the USSR in picking campaigns, or it takes 3-5 campaign failures before it starts working.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Charles_22
I got home and fired up a USSR campaign starting 6/41. It worked. Scratching my head and thinking maybe there's a tooth fairy factor involved, I decided to fire off the same campaign as I did yesterday, that is, with the earliest possible starting time. Hmm, it worked. That was only a test though and I didn't waste time picking units with care, so I fired it up again with care taken for unit selection and it worked again. Maybe there's a first day break-in period for the USSR in picking campaigns, or it takes 3-5 campaign failures before it starts working.

Yeah, same here - it just crashed the very first time I tried to start it...this is some of the mysteries, that you'll never understand...somewhere down in the depth of coding lies this little bug monster and comes out from time to time...but I'm glad your campaign works now, too...

have fun...

[David Lehmann]

I like H2H, the balance between germans and US for example seems more realistic, US aren't such kind of rambos anymore or germans are better I don't know ... I have found that in comparison to standard 7.1 the tank hit % has been decreased except for Tigers I and II ... is that real or just a feeling ?

David

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by David Lehmann
I like H2H, the balance between germans and US for example seems more realistic, US aren't such kind of rambos anymore or germans are better I don't know ... I have found that in comparison to standard 7.1 the tank hit % has been decreased except for Tigers I and II ... is that real or just a feeling ?

David

The felt "balance" between US and Germans is mainly due to a decrease of a few US stats, the Germans stayed the same.
The hit % was touched indirectly - the only thing that influences this chance that was notably changed by me is the leadership rating...I reworked several of these values and got closer to older SP versions, making the US,e.g. loose a bit on that site...
If you add these Indirect factors (like the US having in '43 a bit lower experience and leadership rating then in 7.1), you'll notice lower hit % on the battlefield for them...in genreal the nations tend to have a wider spread in terms of exp and leadership ratings, then in 7.1.
The later versions of SPWAW kind of made these values more equalized (especially Experience) - in H2H you will notice a stronger effect if the nation you're playing was in good shape or only retreating that year...
I interpreted the leadership value more by focusing on the general quality and achievements on that field of military training, then on individual exceptions - that means, that a nation with a rather bad training for leaders can ofcourse have excellent squad leaders, because of talent and experience gained in the field (Russia is a good example), but I accounted more for the concept of a nation to achieve a standard...and the standard training and capability of Russian leaders without extensive combat experience was rather poor...due to the way the rating in SPWAW works, unfortunately the good exceptions do not show up, when you have a low base rating for your nation, but that is nothing I can do about...
To make it short: I awarded nations with an excellent leader training, like the Germans (early war mainly) and the UK with pretty high average ratings and nations that didn't care that much about this, like the Russians lost on that side - they have to make up the lower leadership with higher experience...the US are somewhere inbetween - not really good, but not bad either...

hope that helps...

[David Lehmann]

Yes ! thanks ! sounds interesting, glad to have these explanations ... I am going from surprise to surprise by discovering your mod ... so many things are cool ... I just noticed that Flakpanzer 38 for instance got a smaller icone, it was not to scale before
I wonder to know why you have changed some availability dates e.g. firefly IIc and Vc as well as Achilles IIc are available from august 1944 (july in 7.1) ... is that based on specific information or just due to some practical accomodations ?
In fact I would like to know if the firefly used in july on the Normandy TO were only Ic or could have been IIc and Vc too ... Do you know if the Achilles IIc has been used in Normandy during the same time ?

David

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by David Lehmann
Yes ! thanks ! sounds interesting, glad to have these explanations ... I am going from surprise to surprise by discovering your mod ... so many things are cool ... I just noticed that Flakpanzer 38 for instance got a smaller icone, it was not to scale before
I wonder to know why you have changed some availability dates e.g. firefly IIc and Vc as well as Achilles IIc are available from august 1944 (july in 7.1) ... is that based on specific information or just due to some practical accomodations ?
In fact I would like to know if the firefly used in july on the Normandy TO were only Ic or could have been IIc and Vc too ... Do you know if the Achilles IIc has been used in Normandy during the same time ?

David

The reason for the availability dates of 17pdrs is due to the APCR ammo load rework. The first rounds reached Allied tankers in August '44 - as these rounds are crucial to the performence on the battlefield, I paid much attention to historical dates and numbers...all other nations do have a second vehicle with the same stats, but one with and the other without APCR ammo (76mm Shermans, e.g.). The UK OOB was simply full
So the versions you see there are usually the ones with the APCR load (so not before Aug '44) - if you want to purchase an Achilles with 17pdr in june, just "burrow" from ANZAC or Canada - the units you look for are in there and the difference in exp and leadership values are marginal...

[Gallo Rojo]

Originally posted by Panzer Leo


1) As with all nations, the APCR load was completely redone in H2H, to fit more historical amounts. Russian data is hard to come by, but according to what I could find, the first real use of APCR ammo in relevant numbers was at Kursk, mainly for 45mm AT-guns. It took a while for the T-34/76 to catch up and get APCR ammo, but as the T-34/85 reached the battlefield, this ammo became more frequent. T-34/76 m43 is no different from it's brother, except for a few APCR shots - but these shots make the difference in killing a Tiger or not...

Ok, I take note of that

Originally posted by Panzer Leo


2) The pic is wrong, but you're not right also
The tank in the snow is a SU-85M - a SU-100 with a 85mm gun...but I mixed it up with the regular SU-85 pic...

Dam!! Then I did wrong my model!! It has the 100mm gun!

Originally posted by Panzer Leo


3) Was your T-34/76 killing the Tiger without a vulnerable location hit the m43 with APCR ? Otherwise it should be about impossible to crack the Tiger with the rather weak 76mm, when not hitting a good spot...

I set-up an scenario with only Tigers and T-34. May 1943. Turned off al Tigers weapons and started to fire upon them at different ranges (no more than 5hexes in any case). T-34s killed Tigers by side and rear shots at 5 hexes. No APCR. Most of the times I recived a "vulnerable location hit" message, but I think that a couple of times not ... But I'm not sure, my message delay is set-up to .3 seconds ... so I have not much time to read it ... you're probably right and those shots were probably "vulnerable locations" too.

But, any way ... I would like to hear more about the 76.2mm Gun.
Why did you say that should be impossible for it to take a Tiger with out APCR and without a vulnerable location hit?
I know that this is a very debatable (does this word exist in English?) topic ...

I remember have read at the "Tiger Fibel" that Tiger crew-men shoudn't allow T-34/76 get closser thatn 1200mts by the sides and the rear, and by 500mts by the front.
I guess that this didn't mean that a T-34/76 was capable to take a Tiger at such a distance (let say 1000mts by the rear) with regular AP ammo, but the fact that is that German manual considered T-34/76 dagnerous at those long distance... why was that?

Originally posted by Panzer Leo


BTW...yeah, I could see the pic - good model !

have fun

Thank you!

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Gallo Rojo



But, any way ... I would like to hear more about the 76.2mm Gun.
Why did you say that should be impossible for it to take a Tiger with out APCR and without a vulnerable location hit?
I know that this is a very debatable (does this word exist in English?) topic ...

I remember have read at the "Tiger Fibel" that Tiger crew-men shoudn't allow T-34/76 get closser thatn 1200mts by the sides and the rear, and by 500mts by the front.
I guess that this didn't mean that a T-34/76 was capable to take a Tiger at such a distance (let say 1000mts by the rear) with regular AP ammo, but the fact that is that German manual considered T-34/76 dagnerous at those long distance... why was that?




Thank you!

It is tough to judge over weapons, as many things one knows or heard are often influenced by some sort of reputation or kind of myth a certain weapon once became...
The 76mm gun of the T-34 is I think one of these weapons...as it appeared, it was dominant on the battlefield, cutting through lighter tanks like Pzkpfw III and 38(t) on the East Front...but only one year later it was almost not capable of taking out a Tiger at point blank...so the only thing one can do is to look at the physics and weapon stats to get an impression how good a weapon really was...
The 76mm is a low velocity gun (thus having lesser kinetic energy then higher velocity guns) and also suffered not seldom from poor Russian ammo quality in the early years. Also the ammo type the Russians used was not really optimized for penetration (if I recall right they missed the cap and were just plain AP only with ballistic caps - but I'm not sure).
So looked upon afterwards, the 76mm F-34 was one of the weaker guns in it's caliber size - but nevertheless at it's first appearance it left a big impression.
Technical innovation was so fast in WWII, that the top notch from last year could be the helpless prey the next year...

The armor penetration capability of the F-34 was somewhere between 80-90mm @ 90 degrees, depending on source. This is the most this gun could achieve and if you look at the armor thickness of the Tiger now...well, the normal hit won't get you far...

The ranges you gave are more likely to be the ranges for the 85mm gun of the T-34 (the 500m at front is the common distance given in most sources).

Nevertheless it makes sense (in reality and the game), to keep the T-34/76 at a greater distance - a vulnerable location hit is getting more likely, the closer you get and halves your armor value. So especially at the flanks, the Tiger is not save from penetration by the F-34, if it gets close...
Such a vulnerable location could be the lower hull sides. The lower hull sides are mostly covered by the road wheels and suspension system, but here and there you can get right to it...it has only 60mm thickness and a F-34 aiming at close range at such a spot can achieve a penetration...

The second reason is, that a plain penetration is not the only thing to bring down a Tiger. You can wear it down, by destryoing one system after the other...if you hit the suspension, or destroy the gun, Tigers are about useless and you neutralized them. These hits are also more likely to appear at closer range...so if you're in a Tiger, keep the distance

[gorgias96]

I´m absolutely disagreed with u Panzer. The 76.2 mm F-34 was a versión a little shorter of the 76.2 mm ZiS-3 AT Gun. The Zis-3 was a great AT weapon. The germans recognized it and used it (captured) very frecuently. The penetration with german ammo was beetween 120-140 mm.

The muzzle velocity was for the 76.2 mm ZiS-3-> 740 m/s
The weight of its proyectil AP (Not APCR) was-> 7,2 and 7,5 Kg

The muzzle velocity for 76.2 mm F-34 was ->680 m/s (shorter)
The weight of its medium AP proyectil was ->6,3 kg

Calculate the cynetic energy... as u see it´s very very similar. Obviously ist penetration had to be very similar too.

It´s true that the USSR ammunition in the 41-42 years had a very low quality. I´m talking about the BR-350A cartridges concretely so they was removed completely from battlefield in early 43 and changed for the BR-350B, 350P and others.

It´s true every penetration table gives to F-34 a penetration value beetween 80-90 mm 90º to 100-500 metres more or less. It was so because it copies number by number the USSR penetration tables maked during the war. BUT this tables was maked with russian penetration criteria. The soviets considered a tank destroyed when at least 75% of its armour size was penetrated. The germans and americans considered a tank destroyed when at least 50% of it armour size was penetrated. So to compare the russians AT guns with allied or german guns u have to add a 25% more or less to its penetration.
If u do this u see as the "real" penetration of the F-34 was beetween 95-105 mm what concur with the cynetic energy and historical dates Coincidence?
As u can see this value is too very similar to the 75 mm M3 Gun (Sherman´n gun) what is very logic if u remember that the 75 mm M3 is a 75 mm L36 gun and the F-34 a 76.2 mm L41.5 Gun Coincidence too?

Well i think that is common sense see the obvious. The logic says and the germans knew that a T34 can easily disable a tiger to 500 m shooting it to sides or rear without APCR (the T34 almost never carried APCR.... only in great battles or when Tank vs Tank was waited).

Penetration values lower 95 mm for the F-34 are no logical and innacurate historically...

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by gorgias96
The Zis-3 was a great AT weapon.

That is what I meant with reputation and in what period of time you look at a weapon...

The germans recognized it and used it (captured) very frecuently. The penetration with german ammo was beetween 120-140 mm.

You named the key to it...yes, it was a good design, but it's AT capability in German use was achieved by the better ammo and the gun had to be rebored to accept the German rounds (the same like in the Pak40 - therefore the almost identical penetration values of the two guns).

It´s true every penetration table gives to F-34 a penetration value beetween 80-90 mm 90º to 100-500 metres more or less. It was so because it copies number by number the USSR penetration tables maked during the war. BUT this tables was maked with russian penetration criteria. The soviets considered a tank destroyed when at least 75% of its armour size was penetrated. The germans and americans considered a tank destroyed when at least 50% of it armour size was penetrated. So to compare the russians AT guns with allied or german guns u have to add a 25% more or less to its penetration.
If u do this u see as the "real" penetration of the F-34 was beetween 95-105 mm what concur with the cynetic energy and historical dates Coincidence?
As u can see this value is too very similar to the 75 mm M3 Gun (Sherman´n gun) what is very logic if u remember that the 75 mm M3 is a 75 mm L36 gun and the F-34 a 76.2 mm L41.5 Gun Coincidence too?

Go here and take a look: Russian Battlefield

And take a look at the % of penetrating the armor - also you have to consider things like the quality of the test plates and lots more...much smarter folks than I did lot's of tests and compared Russian, US or German penetration values...the values you have in SPWAW are excellent researched and you can trust most of them...

Well i think that is common sense see the obvious. The logic says and the germans knew that a T34 can easily disable a tiger to 500 m shooting it to sides or rear without APCR

I never doubt that a T-34 can be dangereous to a Tiger at 500m and I also gave an example how a penetration could be achieved...but it was just not that easy for the T-34...

Penetration values lower 95 mm for the F-34 are no logical and innacurate historically...

That is a really vague thesis and I doubt you can back that up...

Somehow I knew, I would hurt someones feelings, when calling the F-34 gun a weak gun of it's caliber size

It is simply the way I look at the WWII guns in comparison, like:

75/L24 German shorty - extremely weak AT perfomence
76mm F-34 or 75mm M3 Russian and US low velocity - weak AT performence
76mm M1A1 or 75/L48 standard AT performence
17pdr or 75/L70 good (above the normal) AT performence

That is how I look at these guns and nothing else I wanted to say...to say a gun was good or bad - well that's up to everybodies taste, as you can make your judgement according to many features, not only penetration values...so don't get mad about me calling the F-34 a rather weak AT gun

[gorgias96]

Yes it used german munition (76.2 mm ATG m.42). And the diference is 132 mm pen. in German OOB (with AP i saw no APCR) and only 77 mm!!!! in russian.... WOW!!" the german panzergranates are not good are simply "magical":D

Yes the F-34 was a mediocre gun AT (difference with 76.2 mm ATG) as the M3....BUT....???? What is a mediocre AT Valour for a gun AT?? I think 95 mm is efectively a "bad date" for a AT gun.....if we remember that a upstanding gun like the 75 L48 gun had 120 (+ or -) Really it was mediocre but the soviets not needed more fire power to defeat the germans "panzers" The most of nazi tanks hadn't more than 50 mm in front.... (Pz IVg had 50 mm max.!! in every date i have readed and in the OOB it has 70 and 60!!) so 90 and some mm of pen. was more than sufficient.
Why the M3 (75 mm L36 lower cinetyc energy) has 90 and a bit of pen. and the soviet F-34 (76.2 mm L42 more c.e.) has only a max. of 86?? Ammunition again?? Really the russian ammunion was so bad??? I think no. Effectively it had low quality... but it wasn't so bad.... finally they winned the war... True??

I looked at battlefield.ru and i thank to u. The site confirm what i say about the soviet pen. dates. In the tank gun pen. statistics it says the russians considered a success hit when a 75% of armour was penetrated. The USA and germans only 50%. So u must add a 25% to the penetration value of soviets AT guns. Then 86+a 25% is.......?
If u dont think this, see as well the germans pen. values u see they are low too..... (they was diminished a 25% more or less probably). And the USA values?? ARE...... pathetic....


Well about the tiger...... it was 80 mm in rear and sides True?? If the F-34 had 95 mm of max pen. (more or less) to 10 hex. (500 m) it could defeat the armour usually but not easy... as u say and the "history" says. If u dont believe me do the test in WaW as i say.....

Bye (see u soon.... i will...... )

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by gorgias96
Bye (see u soon.... i will...... )

You bet !:D

WOW!!" the german panzergranates are not good are simply "magical"

Well, to some it's magic, to others it's physics

O.k., then let's take a look at the ammo at first:

Go here and see what different ammo types were used in Russia:

Russian Battlefield Ammo

And remember the APBC with HE filler.

Then go here and check the abbreviations for Russian armor and look up thhe APBC with HE filler:

Russian Battlefield Abbreviations

Then, finally, take a look again at this site and search for the stats of the ammo, you just picked:

Russian Battlefield Guns

What we get now is:

a 76.2mm APBC with HE filler (BR-350A, or B), with a muzzle velocity in the F-34 gun of 680 m/s.

We only take a look at 90 degrees, as all nations test data has to be normalized to make them comparable.

This ammo now has disadvantages compared to 75mm PzGr.39 in the PaK40 or the rebored Soviet gun:

- a lacking AP cap
- a lacking muzzle velocity up to 110 m/s
- a HE filler, that was not as supportive to the penetration effect as on the German grenade (that's my add - from a British source, if my memory doesn't le me down)

And additionally, there is the overall poor quality in the first war years.

The site confirm what i say about the soviet pen. dates. In the tank gun pen. statistics it says the russians considered a success hit when a 75% of armour was penetrated. The USA and germans only 50%. So u must add a 25% to the penetration value of soviets AT guns. Then 86+a 25% is.......?

Well, actuall it does make your calculation worthless...
The 75% you take here, is the percentage of fragments of the projectile found in the vehicle after penetration.
You should have taken a look at what is listed under the table, the IP and CP.
There you can see the chance, that a penetration is actually achieved (with 75% fragments behind the plate).
Now compare the difference in IP (20% penetration chance) and CP (80% penetration chance) and you'll see, that they're in a span of about 11% of each other.
Now go back to your comparison of the 75% and the 50% fragments found and tell me, if it really seems realistic to conclude a penetration difference of 25% from that...:rolleyes:

The German stats from the Russian battlefield shouldn't be taken for comparison, because:

- these values are for tests on plates @60 degrees
- the test plate quality is very likely to differ from the Russian plate


So to answer you question directly:

Ammunition again?? Really the russian ammunion was so bad???

In terms of AP performence of the BR-350 compared to other weapons of that caliber: YES

Really it was mediocre but the soviets not needed more fire power to defeat the germans "panzers" The most of nazi tanks hadn't more than 50 mm in front....

If you had told that a Russian AT-gunner from late '42 on, I think he either would have beaten you up or he would have have proposed you for commissair career, depending on how much he liked you

The Russian "awareness" of the sufficiant performence of the F-34 gun surely had nothing to do with the 85mm gun being rushed on the battlefield in late '43, or ?

The only thing I really want to say is:

Almost all penetration values in SPWAW 7.1 are excellent researched. Paul and the guys did an outstanding job on normalizing test data and crosschecking sources. I tried to bring down randomly choosen ratings myself, to get a feeling how good the values int the game actually are...but if you spend some time doing that, you'll see how realistic they became in the last versions of SPWAW...

And one thing is for sure...the way you pick some incomplete info from sources and try to state the ones found in the game are incorrect is not even close to raise any serious doubt...

If you're really interested in these things, I suggest to buy some good books (Lorrin and Bird's, e.g.) and talk to guys like Paul Vebber (but after you read the books ) or others who spent more then a few glances at three websites to come up with realistic data...but I have to warn you - this will be a real time eater to get into the ballistics of WWII

Otherwise, if you don't like to spend your sparetime on such studies, I simply suggest to trust the guys who did...

It is always fun talking about such topics, but I assume you were not present at the TO&E forum, when the penetration values have been worked out before the last SPWAW versions and after these debates, there was not much more to say concerning what you can model in the SPWAW engine - more precise can be only newer games - let's see what CL comes up with...

[gorgias96]

I´ll use ur own dates then....

I read... in battlefield.ru. Ammunition carried by the T34 with F-34:

Armour Piercing:

BR 350A (with HE in)
BR 350B (with HE in)
BR 350SP (Solid Round)

SUB-Caliber:

BR 350P

I read now the pen. values:

350A IP = 84 mm CP = 75 mm (this was the deficient ammunition if u read the notes u see how it wasnt produced in early 43)

350B IP = 94 mm CP = 86 mm (Maybe the most used when was noted that the 350A was deficient??)

350SP Well no dates about this but is logical to thing that its pen. value was best than B and A for it was solid and more dense and lighter too what means more velocity....

350P (sub-caliber) CP = 102 mm IP = ?? (maybe 110??)

Now.......... IP means a 20% probabilities the pen. was succeed and CP a 80%. If we use the USA or german criteria (50%) it´s obvious that the real pen. was the average beetween both values. I.e. 90 mm to 90º to 100 m with 350B 80 with 350A and more than 90 mm (it´s moderate to think so) with 350SP

With sub-caliber ammunition the pen. was in 105 mm more or less.


Well u think now accurate 86 mm max.!!! for the pen. date of F-34???

Let´s be moderate.... i think the minimum date for F-34 must be 90 mm (if we forget the 350SP).

I looked for information about the number of ammunition and its types that carried every T34. And i read every tank carried different types and number according to the mission they had. If was used like "TDs" then carries better ammuniton and more sub-caliber..... if they was used like "assault gun" then more HE and so......

Have u thought any time why the soviets didnt use especialized TDs (like the germans) to the summer 43?? Perhaps because the T34s or KVs with its "deficient" gun was it??

Sorry for my late opinion if i do now is precisely for the CL is going to get out and i dont want that the same errors happen. Sincerely i think that the soviets are very ver underestimated in later WaW version and in the new CL must not happen again......

I like to play with brits. poland and japs not soviets but i want a balanced game. The soviets cannot be again a simple "toy" to enterteiment to "germans" players.


see u

[Panzer Leo]

Oh well, Gorgias96 - so you just refuse to be a believer :rolleyes:

But nobody shall say I'm not trying to come up with arguments to proof someone wrong

I somehow have the feeling, that you always pick the things you like (and in this case always to the favour of the Russians) and ignore everything else...

The penetration value for the F-34 gun in SPWAW is most likely for the BR-350A ammunition.
If we calculate the pen for this round like you did it for the "B", than it should have something around 85mm, right ?

Well, I don't know about the production stats of these rounds, I only have some comments, that the "A" was the common round to be used.
It is simply not possible in SPWAW to have a T-34 to carry 30 rounds "A", 5 rounds "B" and 2 shots "P"...
If you have access to good production stats of the different rounds and the thing you want to say is, that there should be a later T-34 version, that carries these better rounds, you might have a point there - but you still gotta proof it...

What you did up to now is simply wrong and bad statistics, not more...

But I have another one for you, that might give you a hint the SPWAW values aren't that wrong.

This is (as it appears) a test of a Pak40, F-34 and M3 gun under German conditions early in the war.

Achtung Panzer !

It gives with 500m/@90 for the

F-34 71mm
Pak40 114mm
M3 66mm

before you scream and say "look the M3 is worser then the F-34, like I told you !!!", take a closer look at the ammo type - it is the solid AP ammo M72 and despite your assumption a solid shot should has a higher penetration then with the HE filler, the most used ammo M62 of APCBC type has a penetration, that is 1.16 times higher in US tests.

In SPWAW the normalized penetration for the Pak40 is 135mm. That's around 1.18 times higher then the test value we got here.
If we assume, that the other values from the test would increase with a quite similar factor, we would end up with penetration values in SPWAW for the

F-34 of 84mm (rounded up)
M3 with M62 of 91mm (rounded up), right ?

Now here is test data under the same conditions for different guns and if you look up the encyclopaedia, guess what values you will find

You can tell me what you want, but for the BR-350A ammo, the SPWAW is absolutely correct (and there's not even a penalty for the bad ammo quality)...

...if you have data on the frequency of usage of the BR-350B round, we can continue to talk...but that is the least you have to show up with

[Gallo Rojo]

I have been following this interesting conversation … and well … I’m not an expert in WW2 gunnery or ammo, but like many people I have been playing war/strategic games since “ancient-board games times” and SP series since the very first SSI Steel Panthers I …
Any way, although I think that PzLeo is right about the F-34 gun (although there may be some controversial points), I also agree with Gorgias about that in some point Soviets are seen as a mere “toy” for Germans players …

You know … for many reason the majority of players like to play German side. Some players have logical reasons to like playing the Germans, for others is just a mater of “taste” and some ones probably have very “bizarre” reasons. But the fact is that most of the people like to play German side … And I guess that, in the case of SPWAW, Germans fans are followed by American fans (since there are a lot of players that are Americans and like to play their own country).

And many players see the Soviet tanks are “Those nice moving-targets;” T-34 are “My Tiger’s food” and the Russian infantry is like … you know … the French fries

This is not easy to prove. I can’t take you a “smoking gun” proving that I’m right … I only can present circumstantial evidence:
German OOB is always more carefully designed than others countries.
German OOB has some weapons that were very rare or experimental (i.e. the Mouse or those Panther Huh with infra red vision).
Dam! Even German pictures are “nicer” than others countries one’s!

I’m not saying that this is the fact in H2H version … but it is in v.7* …

And I’m also worrying about if this kind of “disdain” about other nations than US or Germany (particularly the USSR)



And just to change a little the topic: There is something in all SPWAW versions (including H2H) that I never understood and you may enlighten me about:

I see that T-34m42 has a better ROF and a better fire control than T-34m41 … can you tell me why is this?
As long as I now m42 improvements over m41 were a new gear box (replacing m41 gear box that was very deficient) and some other minor ones like a rounded access port to the engine (m41 had a rectangular one).
Was any improvement in T-34m42 optical systems or something?
And why is the improvement in the ROF? I understand that there is such an improvement in T-34m43, since it had this bigger hexagonal turret … but m42 turret was the same than 41 … Is there other reason?

Thank you!