Slitherine

quote:

Originally posted by skukko:
bring it on Gallo I do think that Tiger is actually more vulnerable than before... really, -don't hit me LOL and T-34s are more effective against all other tanks but Tigers...as it should be. I've playerd with 7th betas and final now two months or so and I do like of what I've seen mosh

---

quote:

Originally posted by skukko:
bring it on Gallo I do think that Tiger is actually more vulnerable than before... really, -don't hit me LOL and T-34s are more effective against all other tanks but Tigers...as it should be. I've playerd with 7th betas and final now two months or so and I do like of what I've seen mosh

---

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:

It's history, not every nation, and actually very few nations I'd say, had a "medium" tank which was as good as another nation's top-of-the-line "heavy" tank (With the possible exception of the Panther, assuming one would classify it as a 'medium' tank), so why are we expecting that?

---

quote:

Nobody is saying that. I think nobody has ever said that on this forum since the beginning of time.

---

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
The USSR didn't make the T34/85 in such large numbers as they did, because the T34/76 stood a chance against the Tiger. Even that "medium" tank, the T34/85, doesn't come out with the advantage, because it was a stop-gap tank, which obviously wasn't built to take a Tiger on one-on-one. The best the USSR could do with such a matchup was the KV series. Try using heavy tanks against heavy tanks instead. Battling T34/76s against Tigers is as fruitless (V.7 or otherwise) as sending PZIIIHs against KVIs. It's history, not every nation, and actually very few nations I'd say, had a "medium" tank which was as good as another nation's top-of-the-line "heavy" tank (With the possible exception of the Panther, assuming one would classify it as a 'medium' tank), so why are we expecting that?

---

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Penetrator: BTW, if you think I have no clue here, look at the thread just started today by a different author (Version 7.0 is a fairy tale) who seems to be expecting miracles out of the USSR 76mm. Sheesh, it was bad enough when people were expecting parity between the T34/85 and the Tiger. [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

---

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
Where do I say I expect parity between the T34/85 and the Tiger? Really expecting miracles of the USSR 76mm? It was that "silly" gun and others Soviet designs that defeated the 80% of German men and resources.. Your posture is pure American Chouvinism, you can't believe others did the long, real and hard job... hahaha

---

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:

You're absolutely right, Miki. And it was also the well trained Russian infantry-man, relying on his months and years of practicing in the worlds highest regarded infantry schools, who send the Germans back to Berlin. He was lead by NCO's full of wisdom and infantry tactics, just beaten by the glorious junior officers, the inventors of the most complex battle tactics the world had seen sofar...ofcourse, if it was not like this, how could they ever have beaten the Germans ?

---

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:
"Handbook on German Military Forces", by U.S. War Department

---

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto:

I dont own that book... can you give me an internet link, please?

---

quote:

Originally posted by BryanMelvin: [The Too hit and Ballistics are more real life when playing against the AI and Human vs Human playing is far best![/QB]

---

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
Give me one source, other than Lorrin, that states PzIII had more gun punch that T-34, please.

---

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:

I own the book but cannot find any reference to a 50mm gun penetrating more than 56mm of armour @30 degrees at 1000 yards.

---

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus:
I just recalled something else that probably should be mentioned. When bereft of APCR ammo, both versions of the 50mm will be hard pressed to penetrate the T-34 along it's still formidably well sloped front "Hull" Though the recent 'balistical' adjustment shaved off a good 25-30mm worth of equiv zero degree armor thickness, the average result still falls around 106-110mm of equiv armor. Unless a "vulnerable location" hit is scored, simming a hit on the machine gun mantlet, the driver's plate or just a plain flaw in the armor itself, both guns, even with their upgraded stats cant punch through the armor as they peak at 77 and 97mm respectively assuming a near perpendicular shot. That leaves only the special and rarer APCR rounds which even then might still skip off thanks to the slope and WAW's excellent detail level. Thus, only the less well sloped frontal turrets remain vulnerable. True you can argue 50% chance of hitting (and pen) the turret is alot but keep in mind the historical precedence. The Germans needed a gun that could effectively take out a 34 (or a KV, which all around remains very tough for the Pz-III series to take without special ammo) at a longer range and with a far more effective chance than meerly 50% (or less). 'Thats' the reason why the 50mm, and the Mark III eventually lost it's role as MBT in the German army, not because the 50mm was 'totally' ineffective against uber T-34 and KV tanks, but because it was'nt "effective enough" to give the Germans a comfortable margin of superiority. In fact it was the opposite, at least until the advent of much more heavily armored varients like the Ausf M for the Mark III and the Aufs G and H for the Mark IV. In the case of the Pz-III all that additional armor benefited the Germans little if the tank gun they carried required them to get as close as 400yards or less for their gun to have a decent frontal arc chance to knock out a 34. The Germans needed a far more effective balance tipper, and found it in the form of the uparmored and upgunned Mark IV, regaining for them battlefield superiority at least in straight shoot out terms, especially if the Germans were on the defense, which by 43 they were more and more on with the sole exception of the Kursk offensive. A tank of course is not simply gun and armor though, its also mobility and reliability. The T-34 still retains it's mobility edge which neither the Mark III or IV could ever fully match, which again is the reason for the genesis of the Mark V...a tank purpose built to beat the T-34 in all three major catagories, Mobility, firepower, and protection. So has the T-34 and KV really been disadvantaged? or simply brought down to earth so to speak? there remain some questions about the downgraded gun stats i'll admit. What would help here is some data from the best real life example we have, Kursk, both historical and player data from the Kursk scenerio. How are Tigers being knocked out? Pz-III's IV's? Is it soley through luck or APCR? or can the 34's at least compete at close range? or against the flanks of the tanks? And of the III's and IV's present, how many were the uparmored beasts like the M and H varients? only those particular's would give the 34 big problems with it's basic ammo. (even at 200yards a Pz IVh is very tough for a 76to punch through) Add Tiger's and worse, Panthers to the mix and now the Russians found themselves in the German's position from 41 through a good portion of 42, faced with enemy tank types that increasingly made the main gun of their entire tank arm ineffective requireing the use of mass to overcome it. Enter the T-34/85, the answer to the Mark IV upgrades and to a lesser extent the Tiger and Panther. The 85mm revitalized a nearly 3.5 - 4 year old tank design (old in terms of actual warfare) and allowed the tank to re-take on the still primary battle tank of the German army at standard to long battle ranges on equal terms more or less (Mark IV), and even gave it a chance against the Tiger with it's formidably thick but reletively unsloped hide. (which considering the Tiger is a heavy tank, meant to fight other heavy tanks does'nt speak ill of the T-34, the real answer to a heavy like the Tiger is another heavy! (IS series) Panther was more of a problem in a way, with it's thick 'and' well sloped glasis but at there's a bonus at least. It's a big tank which presents a potentially big flank shot easily penetrable by the new 85. So the Germans even with 7.0 ar'nt uber at least. Tougher, yes, but not uber. [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ] [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ] [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ] [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]

---

quote:

I would'nt go so far as to call the T-34/85 a "stopgap" anything. I mean, noone calls the Pz-IVH a stop-gap tank with it's potent new 75mm gun and uparmored snout. Instead its praisingly called the "backbone" of the Panzer divisions.

---

quote:

As for taking on the Tiger. The new 34 was an attempt to address the "overall" problem plauging the Russian army in having the same aging and increasingly ineffective main tank gun arming both it's medium and heavy tanks. The KV-85 i'd call a stopgap since what the Russians needed for their own heavy tank was a bigger gun than a medium could carry, like the Tiger. Too, i always found it puzzeling that a medium tank like the 34 keeps always getting compared to the heavy tank Tiger. The two were in different leagues and in different catagories The 85mm was powerful enough though to keep even a heavy tank like the Tiger honest in it's dealings. No more ignoring the laws of tank tactics for that particular

---