Nikademus
Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000 From: Alien spacecraft Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gallo Rojo:
Got it. I didn't know that. Thanks. I will try what you said latter. But even with poor trained Russians crews I found this result really disappointing. T-34 should won Pz III. Don't you think?
The "proving ground" type tests i've conducted so far, where i took turns firing at each side with to hit chances maximuized to remove crew factor/FC issues (since all i wanted to do was test the ammo and armor, side note.....to do this "proving ground style, first turn off the main guns of the side that you are going to fire at, that way they dont OP you cause mayhem ) have shown that the T-34 and KV are not so weakened that they can be called "inferior" to the early and midwar pz-III and pz IV models.
Bereft of special Pzgr40 ammo (APCR in SP:WAW), both the short and long barreled Pz-III's have virtually no chance to penetrate the well sloped front hull of the T-34 unless they get lucky and score a vulnerable hit location. The less well sloped mantlets of the turret are more vulnerable, esp to the long barreld 50 which to me is historical since as far back as the 80's i had wargaming information that told me that this new gun (50L60) was marginally effective against the T-34, that range being out to approx 400yards. Marginal indeed when one considers the effect that the 76.2 can have on a midwar Mark III at that range.
The KV is similarily tough though over on the OOB thread it is being pretty much agreed that the KV is unjustly penalized since it did not suffer from the high hardness/brittle factor that plagued the T-34. I'm also wondering about the late varient IS-2m and IS-3 as well. Those two got hit the hardest, making the T34's downgrading seem a trifle in comparison. Without APCR though, Mark III's have little chance against a KV (KV-1e i should say) frontally even with the penalty
I do though, retain some doubts about the APCR factor. Not that the ammo was'nt present mind you, but in that it 'does' seem to make, in the game the short barreled Pz III 50L42 a bit too effective, especially against the less well sloped KV tank. This does'nt track with early war accounts by panzermen who reported having to throw all but the kitchen sink at such tanks to knock em out or at least disable them. The question i suppose is how much APCR did they have during the opening shots of Barbarossa? Paul has clarified that the Ausf G of the Panzer III, which would have made up a signifigant portion of the invading tanks, has no APCR, making it a scary proposition taking on the T-34 or worse, the heavy KV.
The Ausf H is better though if playing with limited ammo on you could have as much as 6 rounds or as few as 1 round of APCR.
the Ausf J is similar to the H though suffers from a peculiarity in the form of it's reduced armor, having 50mm basic vs 30+30 applique. All texts i have say this was stronger, and i know from my BB studies that a single plate 'is' indeed always stronger than an aplique. Same is generally true of spaced armor though it was effective against smaller rounds such as the 2pounder. My approach to that is, did not the Ausf J also recieve additional armor, esp in Russia knowing what they faced? but i'm getting off topic.
the reduced armor stats really hurt against the long barreld 75. The 34 is virtually helpless against this gun now, even at 1500 yards. Historical? debatable. Given the varience of Russian armor there are times when it was documented and other times when it did'nt.
questions that remain for me.
1) am aware of the German use of face hardened armor, but this was only on the front plates. Do the German flanks deserve the upgrade they recieved? This has caused problems for AT-rifle fans
2) lowered Russian ammo ratings. Waiting for Lorrin's book to take a look at the figures. the RMZ does quote around 80mm for the Russian 76 round. This may be correct. One thing i like about it.....in the old days, all the efforts by the germans to upgrade the armor on their Mark III's and IV's seemed a more than useless gesture anywhere but on the Desert front. Now? it serves a purpose after all. The Panzer IIIM and more importantly the new and improved Mark IVH becomes a formidable tank able to survive on the battlefield.....at least until the Russian 85 makes it's appearence. Dear....send a note to der Fuherer....increase that Panther production! That and watch out for Russian APCR in 43. Tables are turned here it should be mentioned. T-34/76 can compete with even Pz-IVH when firing this ammo. Similar results like with the APCR for German 50.....burning Panzers
3) Russian armor quality penalty. I dont doubt it exists, my concern is how wide spread was it? Most agree the KV was'nt affected. I read a Aberdeen report from the US stating the quality of the Russian T-34 armor was good or better than US armor, which was'nt penalized in 7.0. I'm as mentioned, especially disheartened over the dinging the heavy IS 2m and IS-3 got. the IS-2 early version i can agree on the ding as the RMZ confirms, but also says that later tempering and balistic shape improvements were set in place and the IS3 has been called the most advanced heavy tank of WWII.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
_____________________________
|