Nikademus
Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
|
I for one certainly respect and appreciate both your drive to make WAW a better, more accurate game as well as to listen to our rants and act on them in the days that have followed 7.0's debut Paul.
I think in the end it comes down to the small but sometimes not so subtle differences between "test data" and real life experience.
More importantly, in the case of WAW, its 'game experience'
Right or wrong on the test data, the result of the small Russian OOB modifications have made, IMVHO, the T-34 too vulnerable to the Panzer III and it's short barreled 50mm gun. True, as you said, the front sloped hull of the 34 remains all but invulnerable to non-APCR attack, all fine and great, but it has produced these undesirable results as well, mainly
1) a greatly increased frontal turret vulnerablity to plain ordinary AP (Pzgr39)
2) a greatly increased flank sensitivity to that same ordinary AP (and i might add, the AP of even 37mm guns) A sensitivity i measure by the fact that even at longer combat ranges (well beyond 500 yards), a short barrelled 50 can take out a 34. (37mm at closer range, around 350 - 400 yards)
In relating to real life commentary, i've never seen the 34's armor and slope factor praise restricted to the frontal arc, nor have i seen commentary suggesting to German gunners to aim for the turret because it's penetrable at regular combat ranges (they do say aim for the turret to cause a turret ring jam though). Were that the case i dont feel the tank would have made as big an impact as it did. I would akin it more to simple "complaint level" rumblings from the soldiers like when the face hardened aplique version Panzer III's debuted in the desert leading to British tanker complaints. They did'nt panic, they simply complained that it was now very difficult to knock out a Mark III *frontally* at standard ranges (i.e. 500 yards)
Since the tank retained it's thinner non face hardened slab sided flanks, there was an obvious solution to the problem.
This reaction, the T-34 did not create, commentary revolving around it's armor spoke in general of it's fine sloped sides as well as the front of the tank which combined with it's speed, mobility and firepower made it, for the time, a enemy tanker's nightmare.
This is not happening in WAW anymore ala ver 7.0. I can attest to this since i'm playing ALOT of Soviet vs German right now and can see the differences.
Am i arguing or saying that the T-34 should be an uber tank? Hell NO! To be honest such accusations piss the hell out of me. Do the accusers not play WAW? If they did they'd realize that such statements are poppycock.
In 6.1, i'd already learned to not underestimate the Mark III, even the short barreled version. Get under 500 yards and even without the recent downgrading of RUssian armor, APCR could give you turret nightmares.
Allow a Mark III to get under 250 yards - 300 yards and watch out for your flanks...even against regular AP.
My tactics had already begun to mirror real life accounts as a result....aka, i try to engage Mark III's from around 1000 yards to no less than 700 yards. Accounts say farther, but with the T-34m42's Range finder # ,and with limited/reduced ammo on, a careless player quickly finds his AP running out for little gain as even high experienced Russians (but marred with less than expert tank commanders as is the case in my campaign) seldom get good solutions beyond 1100 yards.
Now? forget about it.....i dont fear T-34's anymore, i fear short barreled Mark III's!! my flanks are as vulnerable as a slab sided German or British cruiser tank, and my mantlet vulnerability dictates i try to fight at ranges only the Germans are good at in the year indicated.
Another argument for those who accuse people of wanting T-34's marked as uber-tanks. Compare my experiences with 6.1 with earlier SP incarnations, or even V5 SPWWII!. There was your 'uber tank' T-34's in earlier incarnations were virtually super tanks to which a Mark III's only option for defeating them was to rout them with mass fire.
Now? while that is still the prime option, with the recent tweaks up to 6.1, that is no longer the "sole" option. In other words the T-34 even before 7.0 was hardly invulnerable. Add to that the possibility of system damages (like main gun disablement even in a non pen hit), suspension disablement, and of course, the very well implemented vulnerable hit location factor, and like with most tanks, you take your chances just showing your T-34 on a ridge like a Tiger and accept hit after hit thinking your invulnerable
Your not...believe me.
Besides which, in the end, this period of superiority for the T-34 wanes fast, the 'uber-tank' will soon face longer barreled 50mm weapons which can produced the results we now see the 50L42 accomplishing in 7.0, but most importantly, we will soon see the debut of the long barreled 75mm which was IMO, the historical full counter to the T-34 (and the KV) 6.1 shows this well enough, more so now with the recent downgrading of the Russian AP found for the T-34.
The 'game experience' i'm getting now is, what was all the panic about? The T-34 was disturbing but the Mark III could still handle it. Why the rush to rechamber captured Russian 76.2mm guns to fire German 75mm AP? why the rush to convert the slew of remaining Mark I and Mark II chasis to makeshift tank destroyers? Why Hitler's fury at finding his order to rearm the Mark III with the L60 was ignored? And lastly, why the rush to refurbish the Mark IV to sport a long barreled 75?
Lastly, add to the sometimes contrary data about Russian armor quality (I WISH i could find that online web site with the US Aberdeen study of a T-34/76b.....they felt the armor was good quality), and the fact that some major Russian tanks did not suffer high hardness factors (KV!, possibly later model IS-2m and IS-3), i cant see a justification to ding the entire Russian OOB and respectfully submit that it should be removed.
For the record i dont see a problem with the Russian AP downgrade, since there seems ample evidience of this and does'nt really affect the T-34 and KV's ability to deal with early and midwar Mark III's and IV's.
I also dont see a problem with the frontal upgrades to the German armor but do hold a reservation on the flanks. Face hardened armor was only employed in the frontal glasis, not the sides.
But in trying to bring modern Russian armor more 'down to earth' so to speak? I think WAW does that enough already without their armor stats having to be dinged.
[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Pz III vs T 34 m40 tests results - 
- 
![]("rolleyes.gif")
So we are getting close to the heart of the matter anyway...the problem revolves around APCR, does it?
Do you think the stats of APCR are wrong, or that too much is present or is all that is needed is a change of dates of some units???
Hardly sounds like a problem that requires throwing the baby out with the bath water...
- 
![]("wink.gif")
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: lnp4668 ]
![]("smile.gif")
. Also the firing range is 10. This is to compare the results with the IIIH's APCR capability.
Test of IIIH vs m40 with same settings
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread