Is the T34 Worthless?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Is the T34 Worthless?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Is the T34 Worthless?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is the T34 Worthless? - 9/4/2000 7:25:00 PM

Tommy D

Posts: 12
Joined: 7/4/2000
From: Atlanta, GA USA
Status: offline

Things are a little quiet around here as we await the arrival of SPWAW v4.0, so let me toss out a question: Does anyone besides me think that Soviet T-34 (M41 and M43 versions) are very ineffective? In playing the Kanev Bridgehead (1943), Baptism of Fire (1942), and Kick in The Door (1941) scenarios against human opponents, the T34 seemed virtually worthless. Its machine guns seldom get hit percentages above single digits when firing at German infantry. The hit percentages for its main gun seem equally dismal, and worst of all, when it does score a hit its shells seem incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of STG-IIIs at any range. Even factoring in crew quality, it seems that the T34 performs far worse than it should.

_____________________________

Tommy D

Post #: 1

- 9/4/2000 9:12:00 PM

Fredde

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline

I like the T-34. Fast with a good gun and fairly good survivability as well. Crew experience has a lot to do with performance, and with early-war quality Russian soldiers fighting well-trained Germans you can't expect any equipment to perform in "normal" manners. Place the T-34 in the German OOB and watch it perform really well ;-)

_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. M�kel� about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 2

- 9/4/2000 10:20:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

I felt the same, Tommy (welcome, by the way, Colonel!), but after talking at length with those who did the characteristics in the game, I came away with a little better understanding. The T-34, as Fredde says, and as your thinking, was a great tank. The problem always lies in (1) crew capabilities (2) poor communications, and (3) poor leadership. By the end of 43 and into 44+, the T-34 becomes deadlier and deadlier. We are used to the T-34 of the older versions of SP. This one (which is possibly more accurate of the time) throws us for a loop. It did me too...Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 3

- 9/4/2000 10:30:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Version 4 has taken a fresh look at hit capabilities, the T-34 is still can't shot as well as the Germans, but should at least a little better...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 4

- 9/4/2000 10:42:00 PM

Venger

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/31/2000
From: Home of the 90mm M46, keeper of the Can O'Whoopass
Status: offline

Why yes, I'd have to agree with your T-34 assessment... Now I'm admittedly coming at this from a different angle, fighting the Russians with American equipment. But the T-34 doesn't seem all that great. The T-34/43 can fire the occasional APCR round, but otherwise it's gun is less accurate and less penetrative than the Sherman short 75, and the T-34/85 while far better than the /43 is not any better than the long 76 on the Sherman's, with equal penetration but FAR lower accuracy. They are also not extremely well armored, despite the heavy front slope. I like it when I see the T34's approaching... I imagine it's even worse fighting the Germans as they had better guns earlier than the Americans, at least up until late 44. Venger

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 5

- 9/5/2000 12:24:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

T34s look pretty tough when you're going up against them with PZIIIEs, with a 37mm gun. After that, well, like the Sherman the T34's main virtues were simplicity and reliability combined with adequate combat performance. Remember, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 6

- 9/7/2000 2:14:00 AM

Scipio Africanus

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline

I routinely destroy the Pz IVh with the US M8 Greyhound against human opponents. The T34 is better at blowing up armor than is the M8, so no, it is not worthless. It is a fast tank which should be used most effectively on the flanks with lots of smoke/cover and the application of hit and run tactics. The KV-1 series of tanks is an effective anchor for the flanking maneuvers of the T34. Many Soviet tanks have light armor set at extreme angles which is an effective design when firing down-slope (the light armor tends to keep the tanks more mobile as well). Not a Flame, just my opinion, Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 7

- 9/7/2000 3:43:00 AM

Kenny Goodman

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Baltimore, MD USA
Status: offline

Hey Guys. I dont know if this was factored in or not but the T-34/76 had a terrible turret configuration with the commander being gunner and commander, plus a lack of radio and your excellent tanks gets its effectiveness downgraded very fast. Many instances during WW 2 of sinlge T-34's wandering all over the place, appearing out of the blue with no supporting troops or even other tanks on the horizon. Not even shooting just wandering around lost. It does seem that the better the crew in the game the better penetrations I get, and historically the T-34's having poor crews may be what makes the game the way it is. The optic system was bad also, quite a bit worse then the Americans which makes it a light year worse then the Germans. So far though I've been upgrading my Germans with captured T-34's as my "money" holds out.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 8

- 9/7/2000 5:48:00 AM

Owl

Posts: 179
Joined: 8/4/2000
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline

Realistic or not I found that in the long WW2 campaign as the Germans in north Africa I had good success with a mixed bag of captured T34, PzIII's (j's with the 50L60 when possible) and a few assault guns along with a mix of infantry. The T34 could run in closer and mix it up while the weaker armored tanks hang back. The 2 pdr does knock out the occasional T34, but it takes some luck. The T34's remain viable even as the Grants/Lees show up, and match the Shermans quite well. The crew quality appears to make a huge difference! ------------------ (.) (.) ...V...

_____________________________

(.) (.)

...V...

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 9

- 9/7/2000 8:28:00 AM

JKG

Posts: 150
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Alabama
Status: offline

I'll throw in my two cents worth on this topic since I just finished a USSR v Germ meeting engagement and went head-to-head with the PIVH. My experience with the T34 mirrors the previous posts in that you don't want to go "mano e mano" with the PIVH. More often than not you'll lose. The best hope seems to be to lure the opponent into flanking positions and get the first shots. I guess my complaints with the Russian equipment is that is seems too costly when compared to the German equipment. For instance the T34/43 cost about 10-15% more than the PIVH but performs probably 10-20% worse overall. Crew experience may account for this, but I have noted the following: 1) To hit percentages for the main gun seem to be substantially degraded following movement. Particularly compared to decline in PIVH accuracy. 2) The machine guns rarely hit infantry even when opposing infantry is on the move and in the open. Much less effective than the PIVH mgs. 3) The number of main gun shots available rarely exceeds three even if stationary and no previous shots fired. If you move, no more than two shots are available. Once you close with the enemy it is hard to repel infantry in close approximation with armor and the loss of shots and poor to hit percentages keep you from effectively dealing with armor. For instance, in one skirmish I closed on two PIV's trying to take my flank at full-speed with 6 T34's. I could only manage to hit and kill one PIV at range 1(I had to move to close as well) and the two PIV's exchanged main gun fire at about 2:3 ratio with me scoring two hits and no kills. The PIV's each fired about 4-5 rounds of main gun fire compared to my tanks being able to fire 2 per tank. The one kill I did manage was from a close assault by infantry riders

It is frustrating to be outnumbered AND outgunned as the Russian player. But if you think the T34 is a weak tank, the SU-85 is even worse. The ROF of 3 means with average crew you get only two shots stationary and 1 after moving. You can't kill diddly squat with that thing AND it costs you an arm and a leg. QUESTION: If playing a PBEM random battle with country training OFF, is there a difference in morale or experience between German and Russian units if troop experience is set to 80 for BOTH? It seems like the answer should be no but the above observations occured in such a setting.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 10

- 9/7/2000 9:46:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Certainly the T-34 is not "worthless" by any stretch of the means. Its just that the tank has the unfortunate history to have debuted during the period that was the darkest hour for the Soviet mech corp in terms of preparation and especially, *training* It also has to be remembered that the tank orig debuted as early as 1940 and it is against those contemporaries that the tank should be judged against but thats a whole differnt thread, sticking to pure game terms, and in answer to Kenny's spec quarry, yes; the tank's greatest weakness has always been simmed since the days of SP:1 in the from of having 1 less crew member, which combined with generally poor exp ratings led to an 'average' of only 2 shots per turn during 1941-early 42. I well remember the frustration of playing scenerios during that period with a 'technically' superior and in some cases virtually invulnerable AFV but unable to hit anything and always getting routed by swarming Germans!!!! added to that the tank's inferior FC rating rounds out the tank's weakness vis-a-vis the two-man turret, thankfully corrected in the T-34/85 Despite that though, the tank is still a formidable opponent, and SP:WAW has'nt changed that, at least for me personally (so far) heh, i can well now understand how frustrating it must be for Paul, WB, and the rest of the Matrix gang having to deal with endless posts on **this happened and is strange, MUST be a bug!** Sometimes it is, sometimes its just the wonderful variablility of the game which makes SPWAW so addictive and unpredictable. I've found the T-34 to be very dangerous so far though i hav'nt played alot of GE vs Sov yet. When it hits, its often a one shot one kill prospect when facing Pz-38 and Pz-III and IV, and until the advent of the 'specials' the opposite is true when firing on the tank. Only the inexp of their crews combined with their low ROF helps me. my only possible qualm is a general one, not specific to the T-34 but a factor to which affects it greatly given its early handicaps...that of not being able to retain a lock on a priority target going into the next turn. Makes the tanks to-hit capability very acute. I understand the reasons behind this new rule and am not totally disagreeing, but not agreeing either, kinda middle of the fence with it. I can see the merits of both side's arguments. on the MG issue. curiously, i've not had trouble hitting inf with the MG's of T-34 s i've used.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 11

- 9/7/2000 10:04:00 PM

jerrek

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/7/2000
From: australia
Status: offline

I don't see any problems with germans saughtering russian t34's (with 50's and up) because historically that is what happened. Nor do i think the russians should have hordes of them against smaller numbers of germans - germans were masters of mobile armourmed warfare including the ability to get local odds superiority even when outnumbered overall in an area. Althaugh the t34 costs more the crew quality scales that cost with the correct options.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 12

- 9/7/2000 10:20:00 PM

Mac_MatrixForum

Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

From personal human vs. human experience the T-34 is pretty worthless. Hey! It's ok if you have Pz III/IV against you but against a Tiger or Panther they are... worthless. I hope version 4 changes this, finally. Just a quick note

. *SARCASM* Am I so lousy a general when I can't fight with the T-34 (not 85 because it's not yet available in my games) or am I the only one who doesn't play Russians with 3x points in complete forest at night? */SARCASM* ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 13

- 9/8/2000 2:10:00 AM

Scipio Africanus

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline

Well the T34 should be worthless or almost worthless against a Panther or a Tiger! So Too should it be the 75mm Sherman. Such was the case historically so it's not exactly a fair comparison- Tigers and Panthers are in a different class of tank- a fair Soviet comparison can't be made until the KV-85 or the IS-x series appear on the battlefield. The OT34 and lots of smoke, along with the 2-1 points odds when purchasing, has a chance of evening up the battlefield when Tigers prowl... cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 14

- 9/8/2000 2:21:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

"Worthless" to me is way to harsh for describing the T-34/76C if that had been the case then Kursk might have had a different ending. In its optimal environment, certainly a Panther or Tiger is gonna have the edge, but they are not invulnerable. Close the range, or in the Panther's case, get a flank shot and suddenly that 'worthless' T-34 has cost you one expensive tank! [This message has been edited by Nikademus (edited September 07, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 15

- 9/8/2000 9:24:00 PM

Mac_MatrixForum

Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

Well maby comparing it to a Tiger or a Panther isn't exactly fair but it is what I'm always against. So I say it's pretty worthless (in the game not in reality). Try beating 10 Panthers with T34s, can't get enough numbers in even points battle. That's what the problem was and I don't think the 85 would've helped. Flanking isn't usually an option, especially when facing many tanks whose opfire is pretty devastatingly accurate compared to your fire. What's more, IS-2 didn't feel like an option because I could get less of those than my enemy would've gotten those Tigers and Panthers. So... I went for the gamey option and got several Su-57s and now they were a bargain... Imagine losing a Panther to a ~37p truck :-). A truck that has superior penetration to my tanks! Something my opponent didn't fancy. Eh, game balance is pretty important lest we will have these funny engagements, agreed? But that's the fortunes of war... too bad they're rather gamey than more historical. Well looking forward to the new OOBs. ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 16

- 9/8/2000 9:35:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

well your comments steer us clear back into the oft debated subject of 'unit cost'. personally, i think that the orig SP-I had it right in that buying a platoon of Panther's was far more expensive vs buying a platoon of either Shermans or T-34. This balanced the killer gun abilities of tanks such as said Panther (and Tiger) vs their (usually) far more available and prolifferant Allied opponents (until the advent of T-34/85 at least) I still feel that low ROF vehicles such as the JS suffer too much a penalty because of a unit's inability to retain a lock on a target from turn to turn. Such a situation does make units armed with smaller but high velocity weapons such as the Russian 57mm a better 'overall' bargain given their superior # of shots avail.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 17

- 9/9/2000 12:49:00 AM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus: I still feel that low ROF vehicles such as the JS suffer too much a penalty because of a unit's inability to retain a lock on a target from turn to turn.

In the new version of the game you will be able to retain your lock from the previous turn. Since you will be able to approve or reject individual opportunity fire, you can now only approve the opportunity fire that has the target lock. On the other hand, a particular tank of yours can deny all oportunity fire in order to keep the target lock from the previous turn. In the current game you can set range to 1 or 0 and your tank won't use opportunity fire. When it become your turn, you will still have target lock as long as the enemy tank is still visable. BA Evans

_____________________________

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 18

- 9/9/2000 1:44:00 AM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Is the T-34 worthless? You'll think so sometimes when you play the new campaign, "Heroes of the Motherland." Of course, you don't have to choose the T-34, in fact, I would suggest a good mix of T-34s and KV-1s. Even then, you'll begin to understand Soviet frustration at the seemingly unstoppable advance of the German armies toward Moscow in Operation Typhoon. You may even have the urge to shoot a few tank commanders before its over

Feedback on this one should be very interesting...Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 19

- 9/9/2000 2:04:00 AM

Mac_MatrixForum

Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

Nikademus, unit cost is very important :-). Ok, just warming us for the eventual heated debates on the new version. I couldn't resist the temptation replying to this thread

. BA Evans, one cannot retain a target lock because one must hide or be shot to pieces. You can't survive sustained fire from 10 Panthers so you must hide & come back later. T-34s don't have that kind of survivability. And a side note, the T-34 is certainly not worthless all the time against all opponents. Early war Germans are certainly not unkillable and Finns are always on the receiving end. Well, I'll be back when I get to assess the improvement in the OOBs. At last we get a real update on the unit data. ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 20

- 9/9/2000 2:30:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

If anybody wants the new OOB set to peruse through before the game comes out drop me a line and I'll send them. They won't work in any other than version four becasue the icons won't all be right...but you can look at the new stats in the editor/encyclopedia. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited September 08, 2000).]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 21

- 9/9/2000 2:48:00 AM

Scipio Africanus

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline

I believe the Tigers and Panthers are much more expensive in Ver 4.0, so that should help. As I said, you can reduce op fire by using smoke (in a recent game against a human being, I destroyed no fewer than 12 Tigers with engineers in halftracks). If you feel it's still unbalanced with the KV-85 against the Panthers, you might try the Panther against the KV-85 and see what you think. ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Tommy D)

Post #: 22