Login

russian armor

T-34 rework

PAGES (9)down
1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AM
#121
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 01:24 AMgbem

yes the T-34-85 is a very good tank... the problem is without the T-34-85 youre left with a mediocre tank thats clearly not as efficient as an M4 or a P4 as your medium line tank... in fact its the faction with the least efficient lategame mainline tank... the P4/M4A3/P4J all outclass the T-34 while the brits get the option to use the comet which is a top tier premium tank...

Oh please. The T34 is already VERY efficient. It comes early and is effective against infantry and lighter vehicles. I would hesistate to say the Panzer IV has better anti-infantry than the T34; I don't know the exact stats but they seem similar enough. What is true is that it is mediocre in the late game because T34's AT sucks. Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting the role of the tank. The T34 is not a generalist like the Cromwell and the Panzer IV. The closest counterpart of the T34 is probably the Ostwind. Great against infantry and light vehicles, can occasionally tackle medium vehicles. If I'm correct the T34 is cheaper than the Ostwind although it is worse at anti infantry and better at anti tank. The T34 is not meant to duel mediums. It's meant to bully infantry and light tanks. All in all, the T34 is a great tank. But it might not be the tank that the Soviet faction needs, and that isn't a problem with the T34 but rather the Soviet faction as a whole. Simply buffing the T34 can't fix that because you'd be given it a new role as a generalist medium tank, which is not something the Soviet faction currently has non-doctrinally and could have many unforeseen consequences. Maybe you are correct that the T34 needs a role change, but it goes far beyond the unit itself and meddles with the whole design of the faction.

Also, fun fact: while the T34 had on paper had 90mm of armor, since it was only 45 mm thick, shells fired by bigger guns like the 7.5 cm gun on the Panzer IV easily overmatched the armor plate, lowering the effective thickness of the tank's armor. Because the Panzer IV's armor plate was 80mm thick, it was more sturdy than the thin 45mm plate in T34s, which was much less sturdy and only produced the predicted 90mm effective armor against smaller caliber guns. Against a larger 7.5 cm shell the 45 mm of armor simply can't absorb the energy of the kinetic impact and folds in on itself. This usually results in MASSIVE holes much larger than the usual hole produced from a penetrating shot.
1 Dec 2020, 03:55 AM
#122
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof

Oh please. The T34 is already VERY efficient.


no it isnt... the panzer 4 is objectively more efficient... see prior test results as evidence

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof

It comes early and is effective against infantry and lighter vehicles.


incorrect... it takes more fuel to rush the T-34 than it takes to rush the panzer 4

minimum cost

T2 + T3 + T4 + T-34
15 + 85 + 90 + 90 = 280

vs

BP1 + BP2 + Panzer 4
40 + 105 + 125 = 270


with side techs and OST T2 taken into consideration

T2 + molly + AT nade + T3/(may consider 7 man since T-70 is skipped) + T4 + T-34
15 + + 10 + 10 + 85 + 90 + 90 = 300 (320 fuel with 7 man)

vs

BP1 + T2 (for AT gun) + BP2 + Panzer 4
40 + 20 + 105 + 125 = 290

with normal meta considerations

T2 + molly + AT nade + T3 + T-70 + T4 + T-34
15 + + 10 + 10 + 85 + 70 + 90 + 90 = 370

vs

BP1 + T2 + 222 or FHT + BP2 + Panzer 4
40 + 20 + 30 + 105 + 125 = 320

as you can see the "T34 coming earlier" is a fallacy... in fact hypothetically it takes more fuel to build your first T-34 than it takes to build a panzer 4... and realistically it takes even more fuel than it does hypothetically...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof

I would hesistate to say the Panzer IV has better anti-infantry than the T34; I don't know the exact stats but they seem similar enough.


https://coh2.serealia.ca/

you can see the T-34 has inferior rate of fire and greater mid distance scatter...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof

What is true is that it is mediocre in the late game because T34's AT sucks. Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting the role of the tank. The T34 is not a generalist like the Cromwell and the Panzer IV.


soo the soviets are the only faction without a nondoc generalist? unlike literally every other faction?


jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof
The T34 is not meant to duel mediums. It's meant to bully infantry and light tanks. All in all, the T34 is a great tank.


it is great if it were an intermediate tank like the valentine or the AEC or the T-70... but it most certainly isnt great when considering the fact that its the best supposedly generalist tank in the soviet lineup... the soviets HAVE no alternatives to the T-34...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof

But it might not be the tank that the Soviet faction needs, and that isn't a problem with the T34 but rather the Soviet faction as a whole.


the balance team will throw a hissy fit before they make the T-34-85 nondoc... although i would honestly love this idea... hence id rather see the T-34-76 reworked into a proper (but flavored) medium tank on par with the P4 or the sherman than have the soviets left with some halfbaked stopgap unit as their core medium...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof


Simply buffing the T34 can't fix that because you'd be given it a new role as a generalist medium tank, which is not something the Soviet faction currently has non-doctrinally and could have many unforeseen consequences. Maybe you are correct that the T34 needs a role change, but it goes far beyond the unit itself and meddles with the whole design of the faction.


maybe... but i sincerely doubt this since the T-34-85 is really good yet not considered overpowered... making it nondoc or giving the soviets a nondoc analogue wouldnt exactly break the game




jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 02:59 AMSpoof

Also, fun fact: while the T34 had on paper had 90mm of armor, since it was only 45 mm thick, shells fired by bigger guns like the 7.5 cm gun on the Panzer IV easily overmatched the armor plate, lowering the effective thickness of the tank's armor. Because the Panzer IV's armor plate was 80mm thick, it was more sturdy than the thin 45mm plate in T34s, which was much less sturdy and only produced the predicted 90mm effective armor against smaller caliber guns. Against a larger 7.5 cm shell the 45 mm of armor simply can't absorb the energy of the kinetic impact and folds in on itself. This usually results in MASSIVE holes much larger than the usual hole produced from a penetrating shot.


this isnt true for the pak 40 and other 75mm guns... the caliber of the pak 40 is simply too small for the overmatch phenomenon to overtake the normalization phenomenon probability to warrant a decrease in effective armor... and thats not even taking into account the ricochet phenomenon..

now you are correct when saying that the soviet`s high hardness steel armor is detrimental to the overall armor protection... at least for sloped plates... since high hardness steel is more likely to spall upon initial impact and thus lose effectiveness... but this does not overtake the inherent advantages offered by the T-34s sloped armor


here give this a look... its a pretty accurate calculator for the normalization and overmatch phenomenon and takes into account varying brinelle thickness

https://jscalc.io/calc/2u6dtwLwzxNmqWld

late model T-34-85s in fact have 47mm of armor in some models and had lower brinelle than initial model T-34s while having superior welding thanks to submerged welding... you would expect their sloped armor performance to be closer to cast armor as opposed to high hardness steel... granted its not nearly as good as the medium brinelle of the panzer 4... but note that starting 1944 german vehicles were made with high brinelle steel as opposed to medium brinelle steel... this means armor such as the panther G or the Panzer 4 H would have equivalent armor quality to contemporary soviet vehicles at the time...
1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AM
#123
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 03:55 AMgbem

snip

The problem with the Panzer IV comparison is that Ost teching is currently too fast. It's less of a T34 problem and more of an Ost problem. I would recommend you add in the 10 fuel count for Infanterie Kompanie even though it doesn't really make a difference.
Yes, the Soviets don't have a non-doc generalist. I won't dive much into the idea of making T34/85 non-doc. I will say that I suppose it could be done if and only if the T34/85's health would be lowered to 640 allowing 4 shot kills. This'll make it a weaker Comet and (slightly) better Panzer IV. The other alternative is to let T34 come faster, but that's an extremely messy change that will be just as hard, if not harder than making T34/85 non-doc.

As for the historical facts, you're confused. The caliber of the PaK 40 and KwK 40 are more than enough to overmatch the 45/47 mm glacis plates. Shell normalization which normally occurs on sloped armor doesn't occur at all when the armor is overmatched. The caliber of the PaK 40 and KwK 40 is 75 mm, more than 1.5x as "thick" as the glacis plate of the T34. The kinetic energy of the shell is simply too much for the plate to absorb and the plate collapses on impact. There's nothing left to bounce off of, in other words. While the quality of steel could prevent overmatch happening in some cases (only if the shell diameter is barely large enough to cripple the plate), the caliber of the 7.5 cm guns are simply too big for the T34's armor no matter the steel quality. I would give a historical source but the domain that the source was hosted on closed, but I recommend you do a little of your own research if you're interested in the topic; overmatching is generally modeled pretty well in War Thunder. As for the calculator you referenced, I'm not entirely sure what formula the calculator is using. It doesn't show how anything is calculated so I'd be skeptical about it. I'm also highly certain that it doesn't factor overmatching into account at all; I think it only accommodates the quality of the armor, which is (usually) irrelevant when talking about overmatch. To clarify, it describes the results as "Armor Resistance", which is totally non-existent when armor is overmatched, as overmatching results in total structural failure.
1 Dec 2020, 06:15 AM
#124
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

The problem with the Panzer IV comparison is that Ost teching is currently too fast. It's less of a T34 problem and more of an Ost problem.
Yes, the Soviets don't have a non-doc generalist. I won't dive much into the idea of making T34/85 non-doc.


if OKW opts for FHT/BGHQ it also techs up alot faster to a P4J than the soviets to the T-34... soviet teching overall is just broken...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

As for the historical facts, you're confused. The caliber of the PaK 40 and KwK 40 are more than enough to overmatch the 45/47 mm glacis plates.


no it isnt... overmatch phenomenon usually sharply increases with diameter increasing by the square of the diameter and normally only relevant at beyond twice the caliber size where penetration is 1.4 times efficient at a thickness half the caliber of the incoming shell (which translates to an effective thickness reduction of 28.57% of the normalization phenomenon)...



jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

Shell normalization which normally occurs on sloped armor doesn't occur at all when the armor is overmatched.


this isnt world of tanks... shell normalization occurs regardless of overmatch... however normalization is simply reduced by overmatch...and as ive said before overmatch is relatively insignificant until it has crossed the double diameter point... that said the 88mm has far more efficiency against 45mm armor than the 75mm as you can see with the calculator...



jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

The caliber of the PaK 40 and KwK 40 is 75 mm, more than 1.5x as "thick" as the glacis plate of the T34. The kinetic energy of the shell is simply too much for the plate to absorb and the plate collapses on impact. the caliber of the 7.5 cm guns are simply too big for the T34's armor no matter the steel quality.


there are alot of factors to this... that includes the hardness of the plate and the quality of the steel and the welds... the penetration calculator already factors this and the figure is still in favor of the T-34... however you are correct... the T-34s armor cannot stop the 75mm pak 40... but 45mm of RHA sloped at 60 degrees will still perform better than 80mm vertical against a 75mm round...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

I would give a historical source but the domain that the source was hosted on closed, but I recommend you do a little of your own research if you're interested in the topic; overmatching is generally modeled pretty well in War Thunder.


yes of course... and warthunder models the T-34`s armor as better than the P4s when impacted by the 75mm kwk 40... no neither the T-34 nor the P4 will stop the kwk 40 but the T-34 has higher effective armor against it...

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

As for the calculator you referenced, I'm not entirely sure what formula the calculator is using. It doesn't show how anything is calculated so I'd be skeptical about it. I'm also highly certain that it doesn't factor overmatching into account at all; I think it only accommodates the quality of the armor, which is (usually) irrelevant when talking about overmatch.


it actually does factor in overmatching... try increasing the diameter of the incoming projectile to double that of the base armor thickness and you will see that the armor`s effectiveness drops only if it is sloped...

also the calculator`s mathematics is powered by the gates of hell team... who have done extensive research in order to create a realistic armor simulation for their game...



also to add
https://www.slideshare.net/NikoHolkko/bachelors-61286856

the diameter of the penetrator has to be at least 3 times the thickness of the armor plate in order for dishing (the bulk of the overmatch phenomenon) to become dominant..
1 Dec 2020, 08:57 AM
#125
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2926 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 01:24 AMgbem


yes the T-34-85 is a very good tank... the problem is without the T-34-85 youre left with a mediocre tank thats clearly not as efficient as an M4 or a P4 as your medium line tank... in fact its the faction with the least efficient lategame mainline tank... the P4/M4A3/P4J all outclass the T-34 while the brits get the option to use the comet which is a top tier premium tank...

Efficiency is a completely different thing. The T34 is super cheap for a medium and despite what you say it has comparable AI to the P4 out of the gate (one of the MGs is better).
All the other tanks are also more expensive, that's why they outclass it. I'd agree on the point that the T34 is not a no-brainer unit, but this does not mean it is a bad unit by default. It's just not meant to be used in all situations.
Is that good design? Debatable obviously, but as I said I think the main issue is just that it is coming a minute late, so Soviets do not get the intended advantage of fielding the first cheap but weaker medium in the game.
1 Dec 2020, 10:36 AM
#126
avatar of Dharx

Posts: 83

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMSpoof

Yes, the Soviets don't have a non-doc generalist. I won't dive much into the idea of making T34/85 non-doc. I will say that I suppose it could be done if and only if the T34/85's health would be lowered to 640 allowing 4 shot kills. This'll make it a weaker Comet and (slightly) better Panzer IV. The other alternative is to let T34 come faster, but that's an extremely messy change that will be just as hard, if not harder than making T34/85 non-doc.


Nerfing T34/85 would not make it a slightly better P4, it would perform worse. Even if it has higher pen than P4, it needs to combat highly armoured Panthers, Brummbars and P4s every game, where it still struggles to penetrate, whereas P4 only struggles against Comet's armour of all meta allied tanks. Again, one has to consider the avarage armour the tank is up against, not the absolute values.


Efficiency is a completely different thing. The T34 is super cheap for a medium and despite what you say it has comparable AI to the P4 out of the gate (one of the MGs is better).


How do you evaluate efficiency? At only 20–30 fuel and 2 pop more, other factions can get a tank that serves two roles – AI and AT. That's a lot more bang for a buck. It's not just a matter of stats and raw numbers, it'S about what the tank can actually do for the price. Most efficient are tanks that can stack the most firepower/utility/suvivabiltiy per resource and pop investment. Tanks that are easy to keep alive, vet up and kill stuff with. That's P4, OKW P4, T34/85 and certain Sherman variants. T34 is the exact opposite. It's only efficient if you are facing nearly exclusively infantry and don't have to retreat too often.
1 Dec 2020, 11:22 AM
#127
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2926 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 10:36 AMDharx

How do you evaluate efficiency? At only 20–30 fuel and 2 pop more, other factions can get a tank that serves two roles – AI and AT. That's a lot more bang for a buck. It's not just a matter of stats and raw numbers, it'S about what the tank can actually do for the price. Most efficient are tanks that can stack the most firepower/utility/suvivabiltiy per resource and pop investment. Tanks that are easy to keep alive, vet up and kill stuff with. That's P4, OKW P4, T34/85 and certain Sherman variants. T34 is the exact opposite. It's only efficient if you are facing nearly exclusively infantry and don't have to retreat too often.

Efficiency can only be evaluated in the current meta because it depends on thousands of factors.
If StuGs are the meta the T34 will not be very efficient just like any other medium. If heavy LV play, slow and flankable units or heavy artillery are meta then the T34 will do very well. It's by far the best tank to dive since it's fairly expendable in case of failure and sniping even one PWerfer or Stuka pays back the costs. Also it is the best tank for flanks since the penetration barely matters on side armor. It can't stand at the front line and potentially soak a couple of shots like other tanks might, it's not as much of a no-brainer But the T34 with threat of snares can still prohibit a P4 from pushing into the front lines. As I said, it is debatable if that is good design or not, but I'd say Soviets currently fair decently in the late game even without the beefed up version. The SU85 and ZiS provide the necessary AT.
1 Dec 2020, 11:30 AM
#128
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 19:50 PMgbem

the T-34 had more armor than the panzer 4 G in real life in exchange for a worse gun and no cupola... this would make the unit kinda true to life while being balanced by requiring infantry support wherever it goes...


I real-life T34 had very bad optics (acc.), very bad all-round view (ingame-view), bad communication-system (delayed response time) and bad engine lifetime BUT good pen and good frontal armor, because of bad soviet steel would be bad against high-explosives.

Making T34 more realistic wouldn't be a buff, because 75mm 48 were very powerful... xD
1 Dec 2020, 12:38 PM
#129
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2114 | Subs: 2



I real-life T34 had very bad optics (acc.), very bad all-round view (ingame-view), bad communication-system (delayed response time) and bad engine lifetime BUT good pen and good frontal armor, because of bad soviet steel would be bad against high-explosives.

Making T34 more realistic wouldn't be a buff, because 75mm 48 were very powerful... xD


Myth. The T-34 had good optics. In 1941, Soviet optics were of very high quality and had some capabilities that British and American optics did not have at that time. Visibility yes, there were quality problems. But while the Soviet tank visibility improved throughout the war. Another problem in the T-34 is the commander and gunner at the same time, which made it difficult to observe the situation. The German view from the tanks was degraded, especially the Pz.4, which had a very reduced view because of the side skirts. Another claim of good visibility, which refutes the claim of their excellent visibility - German tank commanders preferred to fight with their heads out of the hatch.

An interesting situation happened in 1942. For the T-34, a hex turret was adopted which improved visibility well in the T-34. At the same time, side skirts began to appear in German tanks, which greatly impaired visibility, obscuring the side viewing devices of the loader, gunner, driver and radio operator.
1 Dec 2020, 12:48 PM
#130
avatar of Dharx

Posts: 83


As I said, it is debatable if that is good design or not, but I'd say Soviets currently fair decently in the late game even without the beefed up version. The SU85 and ZiS provide the necessary AT.


Yup, not saying they aren't, though they pay for that heavily with the lack of early game potential. It's the lack of options to capitalize on being able to preserve manpower and resources that bothers me, not the performance of T34/76 itself, as I've stated earlier. There is no option to make your late game comp more efficient if the game becomes too long. Imagine this scenario, which is pretty very common in 1v1.

SOV vs OST on crossroads, let's say:

OST pressures early game with map control, but SOV manages to hold on to fuel, kills 222 after a mistake by OST, vets up squads and turns the pressure around at 10th minute. VP is 500:400 in OST favour, but SOV is starting to reduce the VP lead. PIV enters the game, but SOV manages to minimize casualties and has T34 + ZIS a few minutes later. Both sides are now unable to decap the far VP due to mediums responding fast, so slugfest around mid VP begins. Both sides struggle around and eventually reach a 85+ pop comps, including three mediums on each side, mostly vetted up. VP state is now about 250:300 in SOV favour, OST is bleeding manpower a bit more, both players accumulate fuel because mediums are not dying, but can't hold onto the center VP. The game is very even in terms fo engagements. One of the players finally decides for a major but ultimately indecisive flanking push.

As a result, SOV loses two T34s trying to flank the PIVs, SU85 survives, drops to about 60 pop. OST loses one PIV, another manages to barely escape thanks to blitz and a bounce, third one is just fine. OST drops to 65 pop, but is also forced to retreat to not risk losing the PIV. SOV now has more MP in bank, both have the same amount of fuel and similar army sizes. SOV rebuilds one T34s, because he needs a source of AI, keeps some spare manpower and fuel and needs to decide what to rebuild next. OST builds either a Brummy or perhaps a Panther by spendiong all his fuel and manpower. He is now quickly again close to pop cap, but his overall firepower increases compared to previous comp thanks to the advanced medium and surviving vetted up P4, and uses this to pressure the mid VP very soon. SOV now two mediums, one of them unable to threaten either of the three OST tanks. He can soon rebuild the second T34 or get a SU85 because of the better manpower situation and lower fuel price, but OST is meanwhile already pushing him back at mid and SOV cannot rely on the same comp that fielded the vetted T34 against "just" PIVs. Brummy now prevents any frontal pushes and the two PIVs make any flanking attempt impossible, because SU85 can't doi that at all and T34 melt in front of the PIVs. Game drags on, but SOV eventually bleeds out on VP because he can no longer hold center for a reasonable amount of time udner the Brummy and PIV fire.

Standard losses for Axis are an opportunity to jump back with an upgrade to their late game comp. Standard losses for SOV always lead to a downgrade, even if you have the resources to rebuild fast. That's the my problem.
1 Dec 2020, 14:48 PM
#131
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392


The German view from the tanks was degraded, especially the Pz.4, which had a very reduced view because of the side skirts.


Whats the source? Commando-hatch was above skirts, so distance-view wasn't locked.

Way more important was fighting room design, the reason why german vehicles had no angled armor (first). Reload, communication and working-space was key of german vehicles. Not saying german armor was good, but the battle effect was superior, even Pnz.III was able to counter early T34 with ease by simply punshing untill armor cracked. And with Pnz.IV-F2 they had a very effective answer. -> WarThunder doesn't reprecent T34 good. ^^

But all over, ingame T34 armor is wrong repecented, should be better. But diffictult to make it not OP.
1 Dec 2020, 15:10 PM
#132
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2114 | Subs: 2



Whats the source? Commando-hatch was above skirts, so distance-view wasn't locked.

Way more important was fighting room design, the reason why german vehicles had no angled armor (first). Reload, communication and working-space was key of german vehicles. Not saying german armor was good, but the battle effect was superior, even Pnz.III was able to counter early T34 with ease. And with Pnz.IV-F2 they had a very effective answer. -> WarThunder doesn't reprecent T34 good. ^^

But all over, ingame T34 armor is wrong repecented, should be better. But diffictult to make it not OP.


Yes, that's the point. Only a commander with side skirts could look around. the loader, gunner, radio operator, driver had side viewing devices, which were covered with side skirts. And later these side viewing devices were removed and even if the tank did not have a side skirt, other crew members could not help the commander in flank observation. The T-34 had viewing slots and rotating MK4 viewing devices, so the loader (and in the T-34-85 also a gunner) could help the commander in visibility
1 Dec 2020, 15:54 PM
#133
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392



Yes, that's the point. Only a commander with side skirts could look around. the loader, gunner, radio operator, driver had side viewing devices, which were covered with side skirts. And later these side viewing devices were removed and even if the tank did not have a side skirt, other crew members could not help the commander in flank observation. The T-34 had viewing slots and rotating MK4 viewing devices, so the loader (and in the T-34-85 also a gunner) could help the commander in visibility


That's a point, but on Ostfront that wasn't really needed, because a tank didn't operated alone, if so infantry was nearby.
1 Dec 2020, 16:09 PM
#134
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2114 | Subs: 2



That's a point, but on Ostfront that wasn't really needed, because a tank didn't operated alone, if so infantry was nearby.


Now see the tactics "Anti-tank strong point". Which the Soviets began to use this means that anti-tank guns do not stand in one line as it was at the beginning of the war. And they are grouped. Each strong point had about 20 cannons. The distance between the strong point is 600 meters. That is, the guns shoot at the side of the tanks, which means the Germans themselves shot in the leg, making themselves more vulnerable to flanking fire due to poor visibility. And now another question. Why do you need side skirts? Suddenly, because of the side fire of AT rifle, or flank fire does not exist?
1 Dec 2020, 16:22 PM
#135
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 06:15 AMgbem

snip

I think you're right on most parts, even after overmatch is accounted for the T34 seems to have higher armor resistance than the Panzer IV, although some people at Axis History Forum (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=110070) calculated different effective armors for the T34 against the KwK40 instead of 92.4 mm. It seems from my research that shell normalization effects vary more in relation to the shape/composition of the shell rather than the raw caliber/thickness ratio. For example, the normalization effect of a sloped armor plate on an 88mm HEAT shell is much smaller than that on an 88mm AP shell.
Also, while the KwK40/PaK40 are not large enough to cause dishing, according to the report you linked the method of penetration resulting from the overmatch would be ductile hole enlargement. While the T/D ratio of the T34/KwK40 is not small enough to result in dishing (0.6), it is nonetheless smaller than the T/D ratio of the Panther/122mm D-25T (0.65), and I think you'd be familiar with the Kubinka (?) report where the 122mm gun completely overmatched the Panther's front glacis and went straight through the tank (of course there's other factors in play like the differences between the guns under expected circumstances, the much higher explosive content of the 122mm, and the differences in kinetic energy between the shells of both guns, but overmatch still clearly seems to be at play here).

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 10:36 AMDharx

snip

I'll ignore the parts about the T34/85, that's a whole other discussion. In order to evaluate the efficiency of the T34 I would probably compare it to its closest counterpart, the Ostwind. The Ostwind is more expensive, but it can shoot down planes (although it is terrible at that). The Ostwind also packs more raw anti-infantry power, but lags behind a T34 in terms of anti-tank power. I'm not sure but I think the T34 is faster and more survivable. Both tanks are very effective at dealing with light targets (infantry/light vehicles). The T34's inability to deal with heavier vehicles is not a problem with the unit. The unit is great at what it's designed for. It's not designed as a generalist tank. If you want to compare it with generalist tanks like the Cromwell, Sherman, and Panzer IV, then you'd need to buff the unit's AT power, but you'd be giving the tank and the faction a whole new role.
1 Dec 2020, 18:31 PM
#136
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

The fact that this t34 suggestion thread sprang out of ram being demo charged out of the game means that the t34 isn't filling its role- unless that role is diesel powered torpedo.

I agree that it should not be going toe to toe with other generalists but it should serve some purpose in aiding late game.
1 Dec 2020, 18:42 PM
#137
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2114 | Subs: 2

The fact that this t34 suggestion thread sprang out of ram being demo charged out of the game means that the t34 isn't filling its role- unless that role is diesel powered torpedo.

I agree that it should not be going toe to toe with other generalists but it should serve some purpose in aiding late game.


Which one? All roles are taken. And there is simply no place for the T-34 in the game. Not for his performance, not for his role. The only role available to him now is the kamikaze. I would use the T-34 if it was a Sherman / Cromwell universal tank. I would take a "Ram" with the 1st level of veterancy if it was a crush of guns, even if for ammunition. It is really useful and unique. I would take a flanking role, but then give him fire and maneuver for a quick approach and access to the rear armor, because T-34 penetration sucks.
1 Dec 2020, 20:24 PM
#138
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392


snip


Because of AT-rifle-fire. And yes, there were also many units removing skirts after "losing" some parts. :P

All over, in our CoH-story-timeline German tanks were on the defence, and a P4 in hull-down had more potential than T34 because of better Gun and better combat room.


Problem is, that Germans are missing Pnz.III, it would bring much more for T70 + T34 balancing.
1 Dec 2020, 23:47 PM
#139
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Because of AT-rifle-fire. And yes, there were also many units removing skirts after "losing" some parts. :P

All over, in our CoH-story-timeline German tanks were on the defence, and a P4 in hull-down had more potential than T34 because of better Gun and better combat room.


Problem is, that Germans are missing Pnz.III, it would bring much more for T70 + T34 balancing.

They could make the stub dick p4 as a "light" medium. Maybe in t2 after BP2 is teched kinda thing. Fine tuning needed
2 Dec 2020, 01:01 AM
#140
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449


They could make the stub dick p4 as a "light" medium. Maybe in t2 after BP2 is teched kinda thing. Fine tuning needed

I would like to see infantry P4 present in more doctrines as a non-command P4 variant, perhaps as a replacement for the mediocre StuG E. Although the gun would need to be adjusted because it seems to be worse against infantry than the normal P4 gun.
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

South Africa 1
unknown 20
Germany 2
unknown 2

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

278 users are online: 3 members and 275 guests
PatFenis, Crecer13, Maza1862
15 posts in the last 24h
160 posts in the last week
851 posts in the last month
Registered members: 37590
Welcome our newest member, Elstarion
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM