PDA

View Full Version : Uber tanks ??, T34/85 type& KV1 Oleg ?!!



S.taibanzai
06-23-2005, 12:08 PM
hi al


I just wanted to say that

In online wars like bellum/vow/CWetcetc..

http://czechwar.vwings.org/

Link above is Czechwar

Ground battle's are inportent

Now my question is

Why the hell is the T34/85& KV1 russian tank Killing almost german tanks of nearly al type's until maybe the tiger even then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif it sucks

for online wars who depends on ground action also is this very sad very sad

Not to mention ofline

And stupid AI tank behavor In real i dont think that a tank comander with PzIII would go head on atack vs t-35 and shoot like stupid from 500 meters

And that go's for bote side's bleo and red


Some reports of missions


12:05:29 - Flak30_20mm Zenit25mm_1940
12:05:44 HRc_Hell I-16t24 SB_2M100A
12:11:05 =M=Ivan LaGG-3S4 3-PzIIIG
12:11:16 =M=Sergey LaGG-3S4 3-StuGIIIG
12:12:58 =M=Sergey LaGG-3S4 3-StuGIIIG
12:13:02 =M=Ivan LaGG-3S4 3-StuGIIIG
12:13:25 - Flak30_20mm 3-T70M
12:13:26 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIG
12:13:27 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIJ
12:13:42 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIJ
12:13:47 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIG
12:14:10 - 3-StuGIIIG 3-StuGIIIG
12:14:11 - Flak18_88mm 3-PzIIIG
12:14:23 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIJ
12:14:24 - 3-T70M 3-StuGIIIG
12:14:37 - 3-T34 3-StuGIIIG
12:14:56 wolf[61] I-16t24 Howitzer_150mm
12:14:56 - Flak18_88mm 3-T34
12:15:55 wolf[61] I-16t24 Howitzer_150mm
12:15:55 wolf[61] I-16t24 Howitzer_150mm
12:19:03 - Howitzer_150mm 3-T34
12:19:05 - T34 3-PzIIIG
12:19:14 SG44_Glaich BF-109G2 3-T34
12:20:37 AI Veteran BF-110C4B 3-T70M
12:20:37 AI Veteran BF-110C4B 3-T70M
12:20:55 - T34 3-PzIIIG
12:23:17 - T34 3-StuGIIIG
12:23:27 - 3-StuGIIIG ZIS5_medic
12:23:50 - 3-StuGIIIG ZIS5_radio
12:24:11 - 3-StuGIIIG ZIS5_radio
12:24:34 - 3-StuGIIIG 3-StuGIIIG
12:24:49 - T34 3-StuGIIIG
12:25:15 - Flak18_88mm 3-T34
12:29:26 - Howitzer_150mm 3-T34



17:13:17 - T70M 3-PzIIIG
17:13:23 - T34 3-PzIIIG
17:13:23 - T70M 3-PzIIIG
17:13:35 - T70M 3-PzIIIG
17:14:08 - T70M 3-PzIVF2
17:14:42 - T34 3-PzIVF2


Even T70M is killing PZIVF2 Can you believe that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

For more reports go here

http://czechwar.vwings.org/last_mis.php

and match Pz,Stug vs Kv1,T34/85 T70M etc


Discusion of Very stupid AI behavor planes

http://czechwar.vwings.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1434


http://czechwar.vwings.org/forum/index.php

czechwar mean forum link

I hope that they wil look in to this

For manny Online And Ofline players

Meaning al of us

And just saying that groundbattle's are not inportent wel it is

Its included in the Flightsim

so it is part of it

Its a big part in for online / ofline campaigns

S.taibanzai
06-23-2005, 12:08 PM
hi al


I just wanted to say that

In online wars like bellum/vow/CWetcetc..

http://czechwar.vwings.org/

Link above is Czechwar

Ground battle's are inportent

Now my question is

Why the hell is the T34/85& KV1 russian tank Killing almost german tanks of nearly al type's until maybe the tiger even then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif it sucks

for online wars who depends on ground action also is this very sad very sad

Not to mention ofline

And stupid AI tank behavor In real i dont think that a tank comander with PzIII would go head on atack vs t-35 and shoot like stupid from 500 meters

And that go's for bote side's bleo and red


Some reports of missions


12:05:29 - Flak30_20mm Zenit25mm_1940
12:05:44 HRc_Hell I-16t24 SB_2M100A
12:11:05 =M=Ivan LaGG-3S4 3-PzIIIG
12:11:16 =M=Sergey LaGG-3S4 3-StuGIIIG
12:12:58 =M=Sergey LaGG-3S4 3-StuGIIIG
12:13:02 =M=Ivan LaGG-3S4 3-StuGIIIG
12:13:25 - Flak30_20mm 3-T70M
12:13:26 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIG
12:13:27 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIJ
12:13:42 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIJ
12:13:47 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIG
12:14:10 - 3-StuGIIIG 3-StuGIIIG
12:14:11 - Flak18_88mm 3-PzIIIG
12:14:23 - 3-T34 3-PzIIIJ
12:14:24 - 3-T70M 3-StuGIIIG
12:14:37 - 3-T34 3-StuGIIIG
12:14:56 wolf[61] I-16t24 Howitzer_150mm
12:14:56 - Flak18_88mm 3-T34
12:15:55 wolf[61] I-16t24 Howitzer_150mm
12:15:55 wolf[61] I-16t24 Howitzer_150mm
12:19:03 - Howitzer_150mm 3-T34
12:19:05 - T34 3-PzIIIG
12:19:14 SG44_Glaich BF-109G2 3-T34
12:20:37 AI Veteran BF-110C4B 3-T70M
12:20:37 AI Veteran BF-110C4B 3-T70M
12:20:55 - T34 3-PzIIIG
12:23:17 - T34 3-StuGIIIG
12:23:27 - 3-StuGIIIG ZIS5_medic
12:23:50 - 3-StuGIIIG ZIS5_radio
12:24:11 - 3-StuGIIIG ZIS5_radio
12:24:34 - 3-StuGIIIG 3-StuGIIIG
12:24:49 - T34 3-StuGIIIG
12:25:15 - Flak18_88mm 3-T34
12:29:26 - Howitzer_150mm 3-T34



17:13:17 - T70M 3-PzIIIG
17:13:23 - T34 3-PzIIIG
17:13:23 - T70M 3-PzIIIG
17:13:35 - T70M 3-PzIIIG
17:14:08 - T70M 3-PzIVF2
17:14:42 - T34 3-PzIVF2


Even T70M is killing PZIVF2 Can you believe that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

For more reports go here

http://czechwar.vwings.org/last_mis.php

and match Pz,Stug vs Kv1,T34/85 T70M etc


Discusion of Very stupid AI behavor planes

http://czechwar.vwings.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1434


http://czechwar.vwings.org/forum/index.php

czechwar mean forum link

I hope that they wil look in to this

For manny Online And Ofline players

Meaning al of us

And just saying that groundbattle's are not inportent wel it is

Its included in the Flightsim

so it is part of it

Its a big part in for online / ofline campaigns

F_vonIzabelin
06-23-2005, 01:56 PM
now think why??http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
enter the olegotrix...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
06-23-2005, 02:04 PM
Do you know how tough KV-1s were back then?? They had masses and masses of armour!! PzIIIs had lots of trouble defeating them just through blasting at them, which is what they do in the game.

Unfortunately the tanks in game do not maneuovre to outflank their heavier or slower opponents as they would have in RL. And neither is the DM of the tanks that complex.

And T-34s were tough, and they had good guns. T-34s with their sloping armour deflected a good amount of shots, so again it was hard to get kills, and they had big guns which would easily blow up Type IIIs generally.

In the game, once you get to Type IVs and above, then the tide turns, and the germans win the majority of the engagements. I fly in Forgotten Skies and the ground war is the central focus, with tanks being the most important. Our tanks simply cannot compete against Tigers and Panthers. If we do not destroy them from the air, they will more than likely break through the lines of our defending tanks.

You may be right, and perhaps these tanks you mention are too strong, or maybe they're not. I don't know enough about tanks, and their strengths and weaknesses to really comment authoratively on the subject, nor do I know how tanks are modelled in the sim in regard to their armour strength.

In Czech Wars, you should perhaps not be looking at the tanks that are on the ground, but the aircraft in the air. CW is currently in Stalingrad 1942, yet there are missions were I-16 type 18s are sent to destroy tanks, I-153s are sent to kill base camps, and flying against them are 109G-2s and Bf-110s!! That to me is far more of a problem than tanks being bested by another type of tank.

But that's just me.

VW-IceFire
06-23-2005, 02:32 PM
T-34s were considered very good and very dangerous once they worked out the problems and started producing enmass. Which is why the Germans kept building bigger and bigger and bigger tanks.

An entirely different part of the war for sure. I'm glad the ground war counts for so much. The air war, particularly on the Eastern Front, revolves around the ground and not the other way.

faustnik
06-23-2005, 02:34 PM
So, this campaign has T-38/85s in '42? That would be the first place to look for your problem.

ImpStarDuece
06-23-2005, 03:52 PM
The Flak 88 was the ONLY weapon to effectively penetrate the KV-1 from the front or sides in 1941/42. It was simply a MONSTER.

43 tons, 152 mm howitzer, 5 crew men, 3 machine guns. It was the heaviest tank on the front until the implementation of the Tiger I in 1943/44.

The T-34/85 is a 1944 tank, not a 1942 tank. But then again, the Wermarcht didn't really have very many weapons that could effectively counter the T-34 until they upgunned thier P-III with 50mm/L50 and L/60s and gave the P-IV long barrelled 75mms, instead of the short infantry support guns that they mounted.


As for the T-70m killing P-IVFs, well, it more than possible. Afterall the 45mm that it mounts is a very high velocity weapon, designed as an anti-tank gun. It can penetrate 30mm of armour at 1000m, which makes the quite lightly armoured P-IV vulnerable. Secondly, the T-70 had 45mm of frontal armour on the turret anf hull, outclassing the IV in this category until the IVG.

I suggest you post some evidence of real world performance before you start with the ??? comments. Ground AI is, and always has been, fairly limited. You make up for it with better mission design. It a limitation of the game.

Vipez-
06-23-2005, 05:00 PM
WEll.. in the game tanks are pretty much balanced.. and i think oleg has made it this way to keep the game balanced. Naturally Comparing german tanks and soviet tanks is not that simple..

Yes, KV-1E was a tough opponent in 1941 for PZIII and PZIV with short 75mm.. Not to mention KV-2.. However, better tactics and training of german panzer forces kept them advancing further towards east.. in '41 T-34 was there but in very limited numbers, plus it had the early F-34-gun, which was not much better than for example short barreled 75mm PZIVF1's .. naturally 40 L/40 was a superior gun compared to T-34's 76mm one.. not to mention KWK 40 L/48. Plus, germans had the advantage of superior optics (believe it or not, but it is very important in real tank battle who sees whom first, and usually it's the german due to better view at commander's cupola, and better optics for the gun having better chances to score the first hit.) Even the americans eventually learned this, when looking at Korean war American Shermans came out usually the winner with duels between T34/85s and Shermans 76mms, due to better optics

After 1942 soviet's realized KV1 after it's initial success was not a successfull weapon, they tried to enlighthen it making a new modification, KV1S (slightly lighter, less armour), so they concentrated on production of T-34 series.. though KV-1 came back as selfpropelled guns like SU-122 (or it's chassis did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

SO germans had the advantage of usually spotting the enemy first, having superior optics, better ballistics for the gun (after production of KWK 75mm L/43), and better ammunition quality. Soviets did have serious problems with making reliable tank rounds, after all soviets crews did not get Tungsten-rounds until 1943.. You can see this in the develepment of soviet tanks, after all germans put more efforts in making high velocity cannons, soviets had to counter by devoleping bigger and bigger calibres.. I wouldn't classify T-70 as formidable weapon either, it was extremely cramped even by soviet standards, crew of two, commander had to act as reloader as well.. T-70's advantage was its low silhuette, big numbers, and good manouvarability. But truth is by 1942 it's 45mm L/46 was very obsolete on the battlefield. It had hard times even, when facing PZIIIs.

None of this reflects in the game, and it's quite understandable, it would get far too complex to simulate a truly realistic tank sim and flight sim (a la Combat Mission & Forgotten battles ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So we won't be seeing german tank aces, like Wittman, Ernst Barkmann, Karl Brommann or Otto Carius any time soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anarchy52
06-23-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
And neither is the DM of the tanks that complex.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Shvak 20mm kills every german tank up to and including Panther. Nuff said about DM.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In the game, once you get to Type IVs and above, then the tide turns, and the germans win the majority of the engagements.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, T-34s eat PZIVF2 (long barel 75mm) for breakfast. Ratio is about 10:1 in favor of T-34/76.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In Czech Wars, you should perhaps not be looking at the tanks that are on the ground, but the aircraft in the air. CW is currently in Stalingrad 1942, yet there are missions were I-16 type 18s are sent to destroy tanks, I-153s are sent to kill base camps, and flying against them are 109G-2s and Bf-110s!!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I haven't seen an I-16T18 let alone I-153 in CW Stalingrad.
But I've seen quite a lot of 109E4 and IAR-8x flying against LaGG-3s35, P-40, Yak-1, Yak-7, I-16T24, A-20 (late '43 version we have in game), Pe-2 even Pe-8 and La-5. Bf-109F4 (which can not carry bombs unfortunatelly) and Bf-109G2 are the only decent blue planes there.

Vipez-
06-23-2005, 05:44 PM
anarchy52, I think 4.0 fixxed Shvaks from destroying german tanks that easy .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif this would been nice in 3.04 as well, as VVS won many battles during old Bellum due to Shvaks destroying German Panthers and Mark IVs..

S.taibanzai
06-23-2005, 06:21 PM
If only would be 10our 20% dm corect fixed on tanks and ai behavor too"planes and tanks "

That would be very nice

I ask no more then that

StG77_Stuka
06-23-2005, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
If only would be 10our 20% dm corect fixed on tanks and ai behavor too"planes and tanks "

That would be very nice

I ask no more then that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No!!!!!!!! Plzzz don't stop there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/StG77_Stuka/t1.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
06-23-2005, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I haven't seen an I-16T18 let alone I-153 in CW Stalingrad.
But I've seen quite a lot of 109E4 and IAR-8x flying against LaGG-3s35, P-40, Yak-1, Yak-7, I-16T24, A-20 (late '43 version we have in game), Pe-2 even Pe-8 and La-5. Bf-109F4 (which can not carry bombs unfortunatelly) and Bf-109G2 are the only decent blue planes there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be, but I have. I've flown the I-16 and I-153 in missions. I've also flown the MiG-3 and P-40 and LaGG-3 and A-20 as well, but the point is, I-16s and I-153s shouldn't be showing in the numbers I sometimes see in a late 1942 Stalingrad scenario.

But I can understand your frustration in flying german aircraft which can't even carry droptanks.

csThor
06-23-2005, 11:15 PM
Not to be too picky, Tooz, but I remember the initial eqipment of the VVS at Stalingrad was hopelessly outdated and only because of repeated requests the VVS there received new equipment.

KGr.HH-Gotcha
06-24-2005, 01:10 AM
Now whatever you think of russian or german tanks in a direct comparison you will get very interesting results.

T-34 76 (first encountered near moscow) was a shock to german tankers and artillery crews.
it was fast
it had a low shilhoutte making it difficult to hit
it had sloped armor which resulted in MORE effective armor by using less steel (a concept later adopted in the Panther and TigerII tanks)
it was reliable
it was **** easy to produce (by the itme the battle of kursk happened, biggest tank battle on earth, the total losses per side were accounted for some 5000 tanks altogether. the soviets at that time produced 1500 tanks per MONTH. so after one month they hardly felt any losses... *g* Industry rocks..)

BUT if compared directly against each other the picture will differ. In terms of firepower comparison in combination of crew training and technical equipment which would aid in aiming soviet tanks lacked. there were some elite units getting good equipment but the majority of tanks were badly equipped.

German guns and aim-equipment allowed them to operate from ranges +1km, whereas "most" soviet tank-assaults required you to get near the enemy in order to hit him well with a chance to knock him out.

if summed up we can say that the PANTHER tank was built to counter the t-34. the t-34 was upgunned with a 85mm gun (later receiving some special AP-Rounds limited to 5-15 per TANK) which were able to penetrate even the german-holy-cow (TigerII) and knock him out.

The KV1 was good in 1940 because it was **** well armored. in 1941 it became obvious that his speed wouldn't fit into the russian tactics and the next modification was a less armored but faster KV-1S (S=skorotnoy -&gt; fast-one... sorry for my russian)
The prduction for the kV1 stopped and it was replaced by the IS-1 and 2 series of tanks which were KILLERS.

As for the results.
Since all the tnaks fight at 500m this will put the side with more tanks at a serious advantage.
I don't think that the DM of the Tanks is even remotely as complex as the DM of planes so simply spoken, the soviet tanks maybe a bit to tough and with the limitation of the engine the results are as they'Re now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW: ths STUGIII destroyed more t-34s than any other german tank. The Panthers and Tigers were very rare.
The TIger was not invincible. In fact he had a lot of weak spots and technical shortcomings.
Engine was unreliable. The tank was to heavy for bad terrain. The transmission was prone to damage.
Soviets realised that german tanks were next to immobile in the winter-mornings where the mud in between the wheels (and german heavy tanks had lots of them to spread the weight...) prevented movement.

PZIII and IV tank designs were not very effective. The soviets simply chose to have a relaibale easy to maintain, easy to use well designed medium tank.
It's simply a game-engine limitation dude.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anarchy52
06-24-2005, 03:23 AM
Interesting discovery:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000303202826/www.combatsim...htm/feb00/il22-1.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20000303202826/www.combatsim.com/htm/feb00/il22-1.htm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The same on the ground below - German tanks will try to attack from the maximum distance and Russian tanks will travel at high speed and close on target for a clean kill.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess this feature was dropped...

Which makes me wonder...would it be possible in BoB to expose among other things AI routines for user modification? I mean they're/will probably be scripted internally, why not?

sparty7200
06-24-2005, 03:58 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The Flak 88 was the ONLY weapon to effectively penetrate the KV-1 from the front or sides in 1941/42. It was simply a MONSTER.

43 tons, 152 mm howitzer, 5 crew men, 3 machine guns. It was the heaviest tank on the front until the implementation of the Tiger I in 1943/44.

That description sounds more like the KV 2..was used as mobile artillery...KV 1 had a 76.2 mm main gun.
sparty

KV1
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b2/sparty72/aa.jpg

KV2
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b2/sparty72/ab.jpg

CVK_Vogon
06-24-2005, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
So, this campaign has T-38/85s in '42? That would be the first place to look for your problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
T-34/85 and Stalingrad 1942 ? Really no. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif T-34/76 are there only.

S.taibanzai
06-24-2005, 05:14 AM
From Mr oleg



The Dm in terms of armor penetration and power of guns is correct (and in terms of common code precise).
I agree only with the "bad" (simple) AI and both sides uses absoluteluy the same tacktics.

If you think that t34/76 can't eat any PZ4 - you are wrong.
Read Guderian, where he all the time repeat how is better Russian tanks and he was do not understanding why Russians can't them use right.... He was so very impressed meeting T-34 and KV-85 in 1941



Yep vogon is right no t34/85 its t34/76

My mistake

carguy_
06-24-2005, 05:19 AM
AFAIK the armor thikness is modelled in the game.Think its the problem the way AI acts.I`ve seen statistics showing one T34 destroying like 5-10PzIII alone.Normally it would have been surrounded and destroyed from behind/left/right since armor is not so thick there whereas AI just stops in front of its enemy and fires.PzIII do not benefit from this "strategy" but I don`t see why would even 20 standard AIShermans destroy one AI TigerI tank.

Vrabac
06-24-2005, 06:38 AM
This argument about Germans baing impressed with T34 is valid, but them being impressed dind't stop them from killing many Russian tanks for each German one lost... I'm not sure as ratio changed throughout the war, but I think it was always in favour of Germans. So something IS wrong. And it's AI as many already said. Now I don't really expect to heve both air AND tank simulation in one, but it would be nice... I mean, game is actually called Il2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles if I'm not mistaken. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And tanks were pretty important in those "forgotten battles". But current market dictates more mustangs and spits, and some battles are simply condemned to be forgotten in favour of more sales. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

p1ngu666
06-24-2005, 11:13 AM
well, german advantages where
optics, radio (two way) plus commanders using them in pincers etc.

german tanks wherent that special as how tanks fight in PF

park up and blast at each other, with probably equaly acurate guns.

russians where certainly famous for using men and tanks etc wrongly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

like human wave, or sending in 1 or 2 tanks at a time when they have 40, so 5 german guns destroy them.

anarchy52
06-24-2005, 12:40 PM
I recommend reading about Seelowe hights battle

Blutarski2004
06-24-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
This argument about Germans baing impressed with T34 is valid, but them being impressed dind't stop them from killing many Russian tanks for each German one lost... I'm not sure as ratio changed throughout the war, but I think it was always in favour of Germans. So something IS wrong. And it's AI as many already said. Now I don't really expect to heve both air AND tank simulation in one, but it would be nice... I mean, game is actually called Il2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles if I'm not mistaken. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And tanks were pretty important in those "forgotten battles". But current market dictates more mustangs and spits, and some battles are simply condemned to be forgotten in favour of more sales. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The differences between the effectiveness German and Russian armor came from several factors.

CREW ORGANIZATION
The standard German 5-man crew was a more efficient fighting unit than the early Russian 4-man crews. A German tank had a driver and radioman in the bow of the tank, and a TC, gunner, and loader in the turret. Everyone was able to focus upon a single task. The TC was able to devote full attention to commanding the tank, spotting targets, directing the gunner onto new targets, and watching for threats and opportunities.

Prior to the introduction of the T34/85 (IIRC), Russian T34s had 2-man turret, with the TC acting as the gunner in the tank. When the TC was acting as gunner, no one was available to observe, command, or react to sudden threats. Furthermore the turret did not have an all-round vision cupola, making observation around the compass extremely difficult or impossible for the TC under buttoned-up conditions.

COMMUNICATIONS
German tanks were each rquipped with radios, permitting communication and coordination both up and down the command chain, and among the individual tanks of a platoon.

IIRC, in the beginning only the Company commander's T34 was fitted with a radio; all signals to other tanks of the company being made by flag. Later, the other tanks of the company were fitted with radio receivers, permitting top-down command, but which still not permit any tank-to-tank coordination. I do not know if Russian T34 units ever got a full two-way radio capability among all company tanks by the end of the war. Can anyone provide any data on this?

TACTICS
At least in the early part of the war, Russian tank attacks were genrally made at high speed in a buttoned-up condition, with random unaimed suppressive fire performed on the move. Russian tanks were essentially blind during their approach. This was certainly a function of the above-mentioned crew organization, design, and communication factors. Such tactics gave rise to some remarkable battlefield situations, such as Prokhorovka, as described by David Glanz. An attack by hundreds of Russian tanks advanced across a great field of sunflowers and passed right through a line of German assault guns placed out ahead of the German main line of resistance. These assualt guns let the Russian pass through, turned about, engaged the Russian tanks from behind at short range, and destroyed a great number of them without ever being detected.

If there is a lesson in this, it is that efficient tank design is about far more than gun caliber, armor thickness, or speed.

Ratsack
06-24-2005, 07:17 PM
There€s a bit of misinformation about the T-34 floating around this thread. Here are some key dates and specifications:

1. Serial production of the T-34 began in 1940. By the end of the year 115 were delivered. 967 of both 1940 and 1941 models were available in the Western military districts by 22 June 1941.

2. The 1940 production machine was fitted with L-11 gun. This is the gun€s designation, and the L does not refer to barrel length, which was 30.5 calibers. Caliber was 76.2 mm, and the muzzle velocity with APHE BR-350A ammunition was 612 m/s. Comparing this gun to the 75 mm L24 gun on the early PzKwIVs is a joke. The Panzer IVs were thoroughly out gunned.

3. In 1941, the production model of the T-34 was changed to include the following:

a.) the new F-34 gun (76.2 mm, L42, 655 m/s)
b.) armor basis increased from 45 mm to 52 mm on the turret front and sides, and gun mantlet. Hull front (glacis) remained 45 mm. Remember when comparing this figure to the German tanks, the T-34€s glacis was sloped at 30 degrees to the horizontal. A little high-school trigonometry will tell you that this doubles the horizontal thickness of the plate.

4. Transition to the new types (including the KV-1) was slowly underway when the Nazis attacked. Most crews equipped with the new type had inadequate training on it. This combined with poor tactics to contribute to the very high losses.

5. The largest armored battles of the first stages of the Nazi attack were around Brody and Dubno, and involved in these were the 8th and 15th Mechanized Corps, which between them had about 300 KV-1s and T-34s. First encounters with the T-34 were therefore quite a bit earlier than Moscow.

6. The T-34 really made its big impression on the Werhmacht in autumn and winter, particularly around Orel, where the 4th Panzer Division was very roughly handled by the relative handful of T-34s in the Soviet 4th Tank Brigade under Col Katukov. Guderian€s memoir says he only became conscious of the vast superiority of the T-34 after one of the units under his command took a beating from them on 6 October 1941.

To summarize, production of the T-34 began in 1940 and nearly 1000 of them were available at the time of the invasion, but it made no especial impact on the Germans until autumn. In its 1940 version it was superior to the best of the PzKws and, that superiority was enhanced with the 1941 version.

The reasons for the very high losses among the T-34s were only technical to the extent they relate to the 2-man turret design noted above by Blutarski, and I would agree with most of what he said, and also add that not having a turret floor was another oversight only corrected on the T-34-85s. However, we should not forget the other technical advantages of the T-34, such as its mobility (particularly off road), its diesel engine, and its simplicity.

As far as losses are concerned, I think it was General Douglas McArthur who said that in no human endeavor other than war is the price of inexperience and poor training so catastrophic. This truism is not modeled in any part of the game, ground or air.


Ratsack

Enforcer572005
06-24-2005, 10:28 PM
this last statement could be compensated for if we had the ability to control skill level, as is the case for ships and planes. thats the only way to accurately re-enact these scenarios, maybe add an aggression level also.

I spend hrs on my rewrite of the origional il2 cmpns casting epic battles that turn out the way i generally want them to....takes quite a bit of experimentation, but modifying the types/numbers and positions of assorted weapons can usually result in something close to what im intending.

eg...i cant get any german artillery or tanks to shoot at russain vessels crossing the Volga at stalingrad, so to have the effect of heavy rds htting the water all over the place, i used a few of the rocket launcers on hannomags. worked pretty well.

I had 8 mk3s and 4 mk4s flanking soviet arty positions, but had to isolate the 85mm AA guns by putting bldgs in thier way to keep even guns many Kilometers away from destroying htem all.

I also had to change from mostly russain cargo and armored boats, pts, to LCVP...the 20mm on these boats, regardless of ROF or skill level, litteraly wipe out all german objects except tanks, and i wonder about that sometimes, even from outrageous ranges. did you know that 20mm has more range on the ground than the 150mm or even the 88 apparently&gt; http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Its all in how you set it up...takes a while, but with the use of some cameras, ive made some pretty good battles with the correct historical outcome, at least as far as can be done here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Vipez-
06-26-2005, 01:06 PM
It allways gets overlooked, but russians did have seriously problems effectivily producing reliable cannon-rounds for first years of the war. This means, even if the T34 scored a direct hit on a PZIV first, chances were very high the shell simply broke against PZIV's armor plates. German ammunition did not have this problem.. So PZIV even with short barreled 75mm vs early T34/76 is still a close fight, if you count all these things.. Long barreled 75mm L/40 and L/ 48 made things much easier for germans, which you can see by looking the very high number of axis PZIV & Stug-aces

Another smaller disadvantage was the engine sound, german infantry said they could hear it many kilometers away.. though Tiger's had this problem too with the 700 hp Maybach http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

If the T-34 had not been there in 1941, who knows what the borders of USSR would be like today.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Stafroty
06-26-2005, 02:53 PM
game doesnt model tactics, or lack of radios. that cost much for german side, cos germans were much better in maneuvering combats. also, KV and T34 series tanks were superior to german tanks till tiger came on front.

there was once situation at WW2 when germans were advancing towards heart of russia. there was bridge or such, and the german spearhead had already passed over it, there came one KV-1 tanks at the other side of bridge and parked there, stopping whole Panzer brigade or batallion. germans then tried to take it out with 88, which russian blew up, then tried at night darkness wiht sappers, got only its tracks, HE amount was too small next day they make diversion attack wiht tanks while they dragged 88 on position and then shot it some 10 or such times with 88mm AA cannon, only one round made it thru Kv armor, still, crew members inside Kv were alive, which then were killed by german hand grenade tossed thru hole which 88 made in its armor..

in game point of view its bit sad that its hard to model such things like morale, tactics, stategies and that kind of stuff in way that it would follow historical path.

anyway, no much time to write now about this so i dont write :P

F_vonIzabelin
06-26-2005, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The Flak 88 was the ONLY weapon to effectively penetrate the KV-1 from the front or sides in 1941/42. It was simply a MONSTER.

43 tons, 152 mm howitzer, 5 crew men, 3 machine guns. It was the heaviest tank on the front until the implementation of the Tiger I in 1943/44.

Here you go ImpStarDeuce, the last pzIV that had 30mm was PzIVD, we are talking about Czechwar, were it is pzIVF, F2, vs t-70...

here you also have penetration tables for 76.2mm which blantly shows, that it was unable to kill a pzIVf2 at 1000m...
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/pz3.htm#panzer4

The T-34/85 is a 1944 tank, not a 1942 tank. But then again, the Wermarcht didn't really have very many weapons that could effectively counter the T-34 until they upgunned thier P-III with 50mm/L50 and L/60s and gave the P-IV long barrelled 75mms, instead of the short infantry support guns that they mounted.


As for the T-70m killing P-IVFs, well, it more than possible. Afterall the 45mm that it mounts is a very high velocity weapon, designed as an anti-tank gun. It can penetrate 30mm of armour at 1000m, which makes the quite lightly armoured P-IV vulnerable. Secondly, the T-70 had 45mm of frontal armour on the turret anf hull, outclassing the IV in this category until the IVG.

I suggest you post some evidence of real world performance before you start with the ??? comments. Ground AI is, and always has been, fairly limited. You make up for it with better mission design. It a limitation of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ImpStarDuece, the one lacking evidence is you, starting from now, you are making a lot of elementary errors in your post:
1) KV-1 had 76.2mm gun
KV-2 had the 152mm gun ,and it was a very rare tank.
2) T-70 has a 45mm cannon, that could peneatrate a pzIV (which had 50mm armour, later even 80mm, the pzIVG you talked about had 80mm already, before 50mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
only below 400m...
Russian AP rounds were of appaling quality...

IF YOU WAN"T DATA try out http://www.achtungpanzer.com/

before you write stupidities like KV-1 with 152mm

BTW the 75mmL/43 was totaly capable of killing the KV-1 at ranges of 1000m, were the russian 76.2mm had problems with killing a pzIV

BTW guys, the KV-1 kills tigers in il-2, which is a totaly idiotism, a Tiger could not be killed by a 76.2mm even from behind at 50m, the only way was to hang a KV-1 on a tree, and shoot through the roof.

F_vonIzabelin
06-26-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
game doesnt model tactics, or lack of radios. that cost much for german side, cos germans were much better in maneuvering combats. also, KV and T34 series tanks were superior to german tanks till tiger came on front.

there was once situation at WW2 when germans were advancing towards heart of russia. there was bridge or such, and the german spearhead had already passed over it, there came one KV-1 tanks at the other side of bridge and parked there, stopping whole Panzer brigade or batallion. germans then tried to take it out with 88, which russian blew up, then tried at night darkness wiht sappers, got only its tracks, HE amount was too small next day they make diversion attack wiht tanks while they dragged 88 on position and then shot it some 10 or such times with 88mm AA cannon, only one round made it thru Kv armor, still, crew members inside Kv were alive, which then were killed by german hand grenade tossed thru hole which 88 made in its armor..

in game point of view its bit sad that its hard to model such things like morale, tactics, stategies and that kind of stuff in way that it would follow historical path.

anyway, no much time to write now about this so i dont write :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW Starfoy, I know that story, the KV-1 was pierced by much more than one 88mm round.
It was fighting pz38t and pzII (and some pzIIIE) before the 88mm came, so it was immosible to kill then.
But when the 88mm came, they smoked the hell out of the tank. Out of five crew, two surived, and were finished of later by grenade. The tank was totally incapable of anything after the 88mm, just two men survived

Fillmore
06-26-2005, 03:34 PM
It just bears repeating. Early Soviet tanks had no radios (except about 1 tank in 5 was platoon leader or such), their doctrine called for their tanks to stay in close proximity to the lead tank (communicate with hand signals I think).

I think you can imagine how a group of 20 such tanks could get wtfpwned by 1/4 as many tanks with well-trained crews, good optics, and 2-way radios.

F_vonIzabelin
06-26-2005, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fillmore:
It just bears repeating. Early Soviet tanks had no radios (except about 1 tank in 5 was platoon leader or such), their doctrine called for their tanks to stay in close proximity to the lead tank (communicate with hand signals I think).

I think you can imagine how a group of 20 such tanks could get wtfpwned by 1/4 as many tanks with well-trained crews, good optics, and 2-way radios. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, true, what is also overlooked by Oleg, is that most russian a/c had no radios till 1943, and then still many didn't have them (btw they got american radios thenhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Ratsack
06-26-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F_vonIzabelin:

...

BTW the 75mmL/43 was totaly capable of killing the KV-1 at ranges of 1000m, were the russian 76.2mm had problems with killing a pzIV

BTW guys, the KV-1 kills tigers in il-2, which is a totaly idiotism, a Tiger could not be killed by a 76.2mm even from behind at 50m, the only way was to hang a KV-1 on a tree, and shoot through the roof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're getting carried away here. I don't have time to reply right now, but I will say that you should take off your Tiger goggles.

Or, in one word, boll0cks.

Ratsack

F_vonIzabelin
06-26-2005, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F_vonIzabelin:

...

BTW the 75mmL/43 was totaly capable of killing the KV-1 at ranges of 1000m, were the russian 76.2mm had problems with killing a pzIV

BTW guys, the KV-1 kills tigers in il-2, which is a totaly idiotism, a Tiger could not be killed by a 76.2mm even from behind at 50m, the only way was to hang a KV-1 on a tree, and shoot through the roof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're getting carried away here. I don't have time to reply right now, but I will say that you should take off your Tiger goggles.

Or, in one word, boll0cks.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack, max penetration of armour by 76.2mm without tungsten ammo, is 70+mm. (at 100m, vertical armour)

Tiger is armoured all round 80mm, front 100mm+. plus the armour is on a rounded turret, makin shots glance of easier, + it has 8-10 deg. slant (90deg. being vertical). IF the t-34/76 had tung. it could penetrate about 95mm of armour at 100m, still imposible to kill the Tiger from the front.

A yesssss, I forgot, it got 60mm between the wheels, if you can place a shot at 100m there, between the wheels, using russian optics you are great. (take a look at the Tigers wheels, and you will know what I mean)

Btw, there are many instances of Tiger's fighting at Kursk with 30+ t-34/76 vs 2x tiger, at ranges from 2km to 50m, and after killing 26 t-34 in close combat, including being encrcled by the t-34, the Tigers well left alone on the battlefield, king of the hill:P

p1ngu666
06-26-2005, 07:45 PM
if only teh russians had a american 50 cal eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tigers where tough, but theres probably things on them u could mess up easily, like wheels, tracks etc.

american shermans killed tigers and there guns where ****, some guy who won a VC took out a couple with the british anti tank gun. which was spring loaded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SeaNorris
06-26-2005, 07:47 PM
Pingu get msn back, its borung without you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F_vonIzabelin
06-27-2005, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if only teh russians had a american 50 cal eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tigers where tough, but theres probably things on them u could mess up easily, like wheels, tracks etc.

american shermans killed tigers and there guns where ****, some guy who won a VC took out a couple with the british anti tank gun. which was spring loaded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know how british officers described attacking a Tiger? (without a sherman firefly with 17pdr, or a american 76.2mm)???
5 Shermans attack, 4 die, one gets behind the Tiger, and if he has luck, puts a well placed shot. But american 75mm was better than russian 76.2mm

Ratsack
06-27-2005, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F_vonIzabelin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F_vonIzabelin:

...

BTW the 75mmL/43 was totaly capable of killing the KV-1 at ranges of 1000m, were the russian 76.2mm had problems with killing a pzIV

BTW guys, the KV-1 kills tigers in il-2, which is a totaly idiotism, a Tiger could not be killed by a 76.2mm even from behind at 50m, the only way was to hang a KV-1 on a tree, and shoot through the roof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You're getting carried away here. I don't have time to reply right now, but I will say that you should take off your Tiger goggles.

Or, in one word, boll0cks.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack, max penetration of armour by 76.2mm without tungsten ammo, is 70+mm. (at 100m, vertical armour)

Tiger is armoured all round 80mm, front 100mm+. plus the armour is on a rounded turret, makin shots glance of easier, + it has 8-10 deg. slant (90deg. being vertical). IF the t-34/76 had tung. it could penetrate about 95mm of armour at 100m, still imposible to kill the Tiger from the front.

A yesssss, I forgot, it got 60mm between the wheels, if you can place a shot at 100m there, between the wheels, using russian optics you are great. (take a look at the Tigers wheels, and you will know what I mean)

Btw, there are many instances of Tiger's fighting at Kursk with 30+ t-34/76 vs 2x tiger, at ranges from 2km to 50m, and after killing 26 t-34 in close combat, including being encrcled by the t-34, the Tigers well left alone on the battlefield, king of the hill:P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don€t know where you€re getting your penetration figures from, but they are wrong. Here are the figures for the F-34 gun (76.2 mm, L42), at various ranges (all at zero degrees to the normal):

69 mm at 500 m
61 mm at 1000 m
54 mm at 1500 m
48 mm at 2000 m

These are considerably better than 70 mm at 100 m (??!!). I suggest that getting 400 m closer €" particularly at short range €" will improve penetration by rather more than 1 mm!

From Sir Isaac:

a = F/m

where the mass of the projectile (m) is a constant and the deceleration of the projectile (a) is proportional to the force of air resistance (F), which in turn is proportional to the square of the velocity. It therefore follows that the deceleration due to drag (a) will be highest at the moment the projectile leaves the muzzle.

Remember also that these projectiles penetrate the armour by virtue of their kinetic energy, which is also proportional to the square of the velocity. Because deceleration is highest at the start of the trajectory, it follows that penetrating power falls most rapidly at the start of the trajectory.

We see that the standard APHE round loses 8 mm of penetrating power over the distance from 500 to 1000 m. We can therefore deduce that it will lose rather more than 8 mm of penetration over the distance from 0-500m. From that we may infer that penetration at 100 m is a lot better than 70 mm, which is, after all, only 1 mm better than the penetration at 500 m.

Q.E.D.


I€m also not sure what you mean by €˜tungsten€. Tungsten carbide, I assume. In which case, tungsten carbide what? Are you talking about a conventional armour piercing composite round with a tungsten carbide cap (APC)? Or a sub-calibre tungsten carbide capped penetrator in a full-calibre sleeve (APCR or HVAP)? Or do you mean APDS?

As a matter of fact, here are the figures for the F-34 gun firing APDS ammunition (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot), available from 1942:

92 mm at 500 m
60 mm at 1000 m

For the T34/85 the figures with the full calibre round are:

111 mm at 500 m
102 mm at 1000 m
93 mm at 1500 m
85 mm at 2000 m

and with APDS:

138 mm at 500 m
100 mm at 1000 m

This is normal APDS ammunition. The penetrator is chrome steel. If you use a composite penetrator with a tungsten carbide spalling cap on it to deal with face-hardened plate, the performance of all guns improves.

On a related point, the Germans never used APDS during WWII. Their most sophisticated AP round during the war was APCR (Armour Piercing Composite Rigid), sometimes called high velocity AP. APDS by comparison maintains its velocity to far greater ranges than APCR. Many if not most modern kinetic energy armour piercing rounds are variations on the APDS principle, usually APDS FS (fin stabilized).

Finally, I€m dubious about the figure you give for the Tiger€s tail armour. I don€t have a resource on the Tiger to hand so I€m happy to be corrected on this if someone can quote a source, but I don€t recall the PzKwVI dragging around 80 mm of steel on its ar$e (I can't believe the nanny dictionary in this place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif).

While it would be foolish to suggest the F-34 gun was a match for the 88 mm L54 gun on the Tiger, the F-34 - and therefore the KV-1 and T-37/76 - was quite capable of killing the Tiger at short ranges.


Ratsack

Ratsack
06-27-2005, 06:28 AM
I should also add that getting your ideas about the T-34 from a source that's actually about the PzKwIV is a bit like getting your information on the Spitfire from books about the 109...but that's normal practice around here, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, why do you say the Yank 75 mm was better than the 76.2 mm F-34? I suspect muzzle velocity would have it the other way around.

Ratsack

ImpStarDuece
06-27-2005, 07:43 AM
Yes, I was wrong on the Kv-1, Kv-2 tanks. I mixed up the designations in my head. My mistake, I goofed and I apologise.

Kv-1 was still a formidable opponent for a PIII or PIV without the longer 75mm/L43 though. German tanks were really undergunned until the introduction of the 75mm L43 and the 50mm L50/L60

And I stand by my statement that the T-70m could kill a Panzer IV frontally with the 45mm, at least the earlier models. These are the armour figures for the PanzerIV AusfD taken from the AchtungPanzer! website;


Model: Ausf D
(up-armored)
Weight: 20000kg
Armor (mm/angle):
Front Turret: 30/10
Front Upper Hull: 30/7
Front Lower Hull: 30/12
Side Turret: 20/25
Side Upper Hull: 20/0
Side Lower Hull: 20/0
Rear Turret: 20/0
Rear Upper Hull: 20/9
Rear Lower Hull: 20/10
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/84
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 35/0

And here are the penetration figures for the 45mm Model 32/38 used on the T-70:

BR-240SP 757m/s
100m 300m 500m 1000m
60? 43 36 31 28
90? 51 43 38 35

So the T-70 could *theoretically* achieve penetrations against a P-IV at ranges in excess of 500m and potentially up to 1000m. Pratical penetration values would of been less due to various reasons (manufaturing standards mostly), but the game runs on 'best figures', usually.

My figures for Russian 45mm penetration values are taken from battlefield.ru

Here are additional figures for the Model 42 gun. There seems to be some confusion over whether the T-70 mounted the Model 32/38 or the Model 42. I would go with the M32/38 myself, but I included these for the sake of argument.


45mm M42
Penetration (mm through vertical plate - calculated)
Range(metres) 100 200 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
Penetration(mm) 98 95 89 78 67 56 44 33
Flight Time(secs) 0.12 0.25 0.52 1.15 1.88 2.76 3.86 5.32

figures taken from here; http://www.wwiitanks.co.uk/tankdata/1942-USSR-LightTank-LightTankT-70.html

Dtools4fools
06-27-2005, 08:23 AM
Not being a tank grog myself I play CM quzite a bit and was reading a lot on their forums. And there are certainly people there who took their tanks seriously (including the developers of the game).

What I remember is that the rear armor was indeed heavy. The tank had 82mm armour stats there I think (and 102 at front) - measuring of captured tanks support 82mm actual armor as opposed to 80mm specs.
Even on its tail.

And yes, 76mm armed T-36 vs Tiger I has been discussed in their forums (serach their forums at battlefront.com) many times. Concusion is that 76mm T-34 to go up against Tiger I is a very bad idea if you have just regular ammo. Lower side hull at extreme short range was only part that could be penetrated - if T-34 lived long enough...

75mm US gun on the Sherman was better against Tiger I (side) armour, don't remember why, bad quality of russian ammo during certain periods of the war being certainly one factor.
****

Dtools4fools
06-27-2005, 09:12 AM
ImpStarDuece,

I just loaded CM game and checked their armor penetrations/stats for the tanks and guns.

I do not know how accurate those numbers on russian battelfield website are. However the guys at CM did take their job serious and a lot went into reserach. One fellow even wrote a book on WW II armor and ballisitcs.

One of the reasons why russian ammo didn't penetrate so well was poor manufacturing especailly early war and that they had largert HE fillers. (Penetraiton values for same guns do change in CMBB game depending on year by the way due to quality of ammo. The number I give are early war.)

Tiger armor weakest at lower hull, 62mm at 0 angle. Rear is 82mm at a slight angle (8 degrees).

Pz IV C and D are 30mm frontal armor, 7-12 degrees.

45mm L-46 at 757m/sec on T-70 penetration is:

37-33-29 mm for 100-500-1000m at 0 angle.

So T-70 must get close and hit dead on (no side angle) to penetrate front armor.

76,2mm L 42 (680m/sec) penetration is:

82-77-49mm at 0 angle at 100-500-1000m

So lower side hull is the only realiable spot to kill Tiger.

76,2mm L 31 penetration stats are 68-61-53, so not looking good for that gun at all...

American 75mm gun (619m/sec) on M4 gets 113-93-74 penetration, but this was changed to 104-96-87 in CMAK game, dunno what prompted that change.

So yes, Sherman was better vs Tiger I (side).

And yes, Otto Carius mentions in his book that with the apperance of the Su 152 - and only then - the Tiger could not be taken as a life-saver anymore.
****

Dtools4fools
06-27-2005, 09:30 AM
Forgot to add:

in 44 the penetration stats of 45 model 38 are 61-43-40 at 0 angle (even better than the 90 angle russian battlefireld figures, (russians measured angle different)), considerably up form early war. Problem only being that by 44 they faced Pz IV G's with heavier armor and no more D's with 30mm.
****

joeap
06-27-2005, 09:39 AM
One simple question: how often did T-34s or Shermans face Tigers??? (Or how often did Allied pilots strafe Tigers with their 50 calibers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) Most of the time they faced Pz III or IVs, and often no tanks at all at the end? So T-34s were more than adequate from a stat point of view, if not training and accessory (ie. radios and optics) vs. LIKELY opponents.

Dtools4fools
06-27-2005, 10:09 AM
Sure enough Pz III and later IV was the most likely opponent.

But early war there were loads more T-26 and BT's than T-34 and KV's as well.

And yes, adequate from a strat view as you say it, but the tanker in there might disagree with you. It's him biting the bullet...

It was after all doctrine (in the west) not to engage Panthers and Tigers if not having a 4 or 5 to 1 superiority in numbers. That's dooes NOT mean that only one will survive, rather that 4-5 Shermans were needed to safely deal with a Tiger.

The 85mm gun on the T-34 itself is a proof that Tigers and Panthers (and even uparmored PzIV) were a problem for 76mm guns - bigger guns were needed to counter those. If 76mm would have been sufficient, why T-34/85?
Same goes for Pz III "specials" or Pz IV with L48 gun - those were upgunned to be able to deal with T-34/KV I (and uparmored to achieve protection against those guns).

Early KV one were armed with 76,2 L31 gun and with that one you indeed might to have to hang KV on tree and shoot top armor of Kitten. But when Tiger appeared early KV I had dissappered by then, so no need for extra-strong-tree-hanging-rope-field-mod...

****

p1ngu666
06-27-2005, 02:41 PM
im well aware of the 4-6 or whatever shermans to 1 tiger, the guy in question earned his VC in the market garden operation i think.

p1ngu666
06-27-2005, 02:59 PM
Documentary

Decisive Weapons

11:00pm - 11:30pm

UKTV History




UPDATED LISTING

VIDEO Plus+: 98255756





T34 - the Queen of Tanks

A series chronicling the impact of technology on the history of war. This episode tells the story of the Soviet T34 tank, the manufacture of which heralded the largest industrial migration in history. In 1941, the Soviet Union faced near-certain defeat at the hands of the Germans, until the arrival of a new secret weapon - the T34 tank. It was one of the turning points that led to the defeat of Hitler's Third Reich.

they repeat the shows in the daytime, if people miss it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ratsack
06-27-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:


76,2mm L 42 (680m/sec) penetration is:

82-77-49mm at 0 angle at 100-500-1000m


American 75mm gun (619m/sec) on M4 gets 113-93-74 penetration, but this was changed to 104-96-87 in CMAK game, dunno what prompted that change.

So yes, Sherman was better vs Tiger I (side).


**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There€s something screwy with those figures. If we assume a similar projectile mass, what these figures say is that an AP round fired from the American M4 75 mm gun, with only 83 % of the kinetic energy of the AP round fired from the Soviet F-34 76.2 mm gun, nevertheless has nearly 140% better penetration than the F-34 at 100 m.

Either the figures are wrong, or they are for very different kinds of ammunition, in which case we're not comparing apples with apples. Can you clarify?

Ratsack


[edit]
In fact, I just read those figures again, and the figure you've given for the muzzle velocity of the 75 mm gun on the Sherman is only a fraction higher than that of the original 30.5 calibre length 76.2 mm gun on the first T-34s!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif This is a gun the Soviets thought inadequate in early 1941! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif There is something very wrong with those penetration figures: the yank gun is using APCR or APDS ammo to get figures like those...or it's not the L42 75 mm at all, but the long one.

Dtools4fools
06-28-2005, 09:14 AM
I don't think it is apples vs oranges even if ammo is very different if the question is Tiger ves T-34/76 or Sherman 75.

Sherman is better in the game and I can tell you that rexford, their armor/gun/penetration fellow certainly does his research.

I checked values again:

Standard AP ammo on Sherman 75 is given as APCBC large HE charge with 104-96-87 penetration values.

T-34/76 L31 is 68-61-53 APBC, large HE charge
T-34/76 L42 is 69-79-62 APBC, large HE charge

this is early war poor ammo quality

T-34/76 L42 is 86-81-71, blunt nose, APBC, large HE charge

this is late war ammo.

tungesten APCR fire at 965m/sec get the L42 gun value of 138-98-64, but those rounds were very rare so I did not include them.

I think it has to do with ammo type/quality, etc, there is something called "shatter gap" as well (it has to do that under certain conditions ammo breaks up, but you would have to really search battleront.com CMBB forums for it to get detailed info, those guys know much more than me...). Muzzle velocity is certainly not the only factor that's important. Mass is too. Ammo type. But at the end of the day it is what was standard ammo available and what could be done with that ammo.

So looking at standard AP ammo available to the tankers the american gun had better chances in defeating a Tiger (from the side).

By the way, the puny 75 L24 (385m/sec) on the short PzIV variants gets 60-56-51 for APCBC...
L43 (740m/sec) 128-117-104 APCBC
L48 (750m/sec) 131-119-106 APCBC

and there was a tungsten APCR round as well for those guns, but very rare.

Pingu,

T-34 was certainly a milestone in tank development as it was the first tank
- to incoporate sloped armor
- wide tracks for lower ground pressure
- big gun for its time

However it was a lousy tank as it
- two man turret with overworked commander
- no radios, flag signals used instead; how he instructed the driver is another problem...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
- no cupola with a virtually blind commander if closed up or when him aiming the gun
Additional it:
- suffered from bad ammo
- optics weren't so good

Late T34/85 had radio/cupola/3 man turret to fix those problems but unsufficient armor by that time.

Marcus
****

****

Dtools4fools
06-28-2005, 10:07 AM
Forgot:

US 76,2 L52 (793m/sec) gets 142-131-119, APCBC large HE charge.

Here a link to Matrix where Lorrin (aka rexford, they penetration guy who did a lot for Cm games where I got my numbers from):

Armor vs penetration (http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm)

By the way the got the same "Ueber" whining in the forums of CM as here, usually all about overmodelled German equipment or undermodeled allied.

If you want to read more what's going on there read here (http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm).

Another thing to take into count would finally be armor type (rolled, cast, face hardened, homogenous) and quality. I think had very good armor, while Panthers had poor quality armor during late war.

****

Dtools4fools
06-28-2005, 10:11 AM
Forgot,

search for the

Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

topic in CMBB forum.
****

F_vonIzabelin
06-28-2005, 10:27 AM
ratsack, as Dtools4fools wrote, at 100m it's 82mm penetration (if it was a good day for Mother Russia:P).
The problem is russian projectile quality, during the whole war, which markedly lowered official penetration values, + gave such bad effects for all russian guns.
The same problem was with yak, la, etc.., a ideal version was good, maybe even better than a 109, but the standard production version was just tragic, things falling off for no reason, engine life 1/2 of 109 engine, (with 109 having more power) etc...
Just Olegotrix works on "official" tables for Russian planes, and "tested" tables for axis planes. Tank are totaly crazy in il-2, but that isn't such a shock for me, after seeing what the Flying Coffin the Lagg-3 can do in-game

ImpStarDuece--&gt;Yes I said the t-70 could kill a pzIVD below 500m, which is shown in all tables, except official russian ones, for some reason I am not sure I wan'to belive any thing the russians say officialy.
This still doeasnt make the t-70 a equall opponent for a pzIVD, as it can kill the t-70 at almost all ranges (using also hollow-charge ammo if needed for long distance, as HC rounds do not lose penetration with distance.)

Dtools4fools
06-28-2005, 11:39 AM
This takes me to an idea.

In CM you got stats of armor faults, meaning if you had let's say a late war Panther which sometimes had flawed armor you *might* get lesser protection from the armor on that tank than its specs were. You however did not know for sure.

Now wouldn't it be great to have a variation in preformance of planes as well? I think for official tests *ideal* types were used with best fuel and maintenance. Now in the field I would not be surprised if top speed of different planes of same type would be quite a bit different.
- fuel quality
- hours on the engine already
- experience of mechanics
- production quality

So maybe a variable in top speed would be interesting...

I remember Knoke writing in his book when he caught a Mossie in his Me that his wingman was not able to follow. Now were they on different version of the Me (possible with all the variants out there) or was his one just "better"?

Marcus
****

p1ngu666
06-28-2005, 02:55 PM
planes did vary, but how do u do it fairly for onwhine?

late war quality would effect teh 109 jocks alot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
06-28-2005, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
I don't think it is apples vs oranges even if ammo is very different if the question is Tiger ves T-34/76 or Sherman 75.

Sherman is better in the game and I can tell you that rexford, their armor/gun/penetration fellow certainly does his research.

I checked values again:

Standard AP ammo on Sherman 75 is given as APCBC large HE charge with 104-96-87 penetration values.

T-34/76 L31 is 68-61-53 APBC, large HE charge
T-34/76 L42 is 69-79-62 APBC, large HE charge

this is early war poor ammo quality

T-34/76 L42 is 86-81-71, blunt nose, APBC, large HE charge

this is late war ammo.

tungesten APCR fire at 965m/sec get the L42 gun value of 138-98-64, but those rounds were very rare so I did not include them.

I think it has to do with ammo type/quality, etc, there is something called "shatter gap" as well (it has to do that under certain conditions ammo breaks up, but you would have to really search battleront.com CMBB forums for it to get detailed info, those guys know much more than me...). Muzzle velocity is certainly not the only factor that's important. Mass is too. Ammo type. But at the end of the day it is what was standard ammo available and what could be done with that ammo.

So looking at standard AP ammo available to the tankers the american gun had better chances in defeating a Tiger (from the side).

By the way, the puny 75 L24 (385m/sec) on the short PzIV variants gets 60-56-51 for APCBC...
L43 (740m/sec) 128-117-104 APCBC
L48 (750m/sec) 131-119-106 APCBC

and there was a tungsten APCR round as well for those guns, but very rare.

Pingu,

T-34 was certainly a milestone in tank development as it was the first tank
- to incoporate sloped armor
- wide tracks for lower ground pressure
- big gun for its time

However it was a lousy tank as it
- two man turret with overworked commander
- no radios, flag signals used instead; how he instructed the driver is another problem...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
- no cupola with a virtually blind commander if closed up or when him aiming the gun
Additional it:
- suffered from bad ammo
- optics weren't so good

Late T34/85 had radio/cupola/3 man turret to fix those problems but unsufficient armor by that time.

Marcus
****

**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dont know much about tanks, but t34 was a good medium tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
the stalin tanks where aprently very scary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Amnio
06-28-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">how he instructed the driver is another problem... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe the commander had the driver on intercom. This system was implemented rather early, but at first only two where available to each vehicle. So communicating with the remainder of the crew could be a challenge.

anarchy52
06-28-2005, 05:28 PM
http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/library...anks_at_aberdeen.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/library/russian_tanks/evaluation_of_russians_tanks_at_aberdeen.htm)

apparently excellent design not reaching it's full potential

Ratsack
06-28-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
I don't think it is apples vs oranges even if ammo is very different if the question is Tiger ves T-34/76 or Sherman 75.
...
I think it has to do with ammo type/quality, etc, there is something called "shatter gap" as well (it has to do that under certain conditions ammo breaks up, but you would have to really search battleront.com CMBB forums for it to get detailed info, those guys know much more than me...). Muzzle velocity is certainly not the only factor that's important. Mass is too. Ammo type. But at the end of the day it is what was standard ammo available and what could be done with that ammo.


**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will reply more fully later, but for now I€ll point out that for ALL kinetic energy AP rounds, muzzle velocity is by far the most important factor affecting penetration. Remember that kinetic energy is only directly proportional to mass, but is directly proportional to the square of the velocity. In any case, the mass of the 76.2 mm and 75 mm AP rounds was similar.

Secondly, we€re not talking about some notional €˜average€ performance of these guns, factoring in the odd dud and the ones that shatter. These are meant to be maximum performance figures. Maximum means just that. On this basis, those figures are not credible.

Ratsack

Blutarski2004
06-28-2005, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
I don't think it is apples vs oranges even if ammo is very different if the question is Tiger ves T-34/76 or Sherman 75.
...
I think it has to do with ammo type/quality, etc, there is something called "shatter gap" as well (it has to do that under certain conditions ammo breaks up, but you would have to really search battleront.com CMBB forums for it to get detailed info, those guys know much more than me...). Muzzle velocity is certainly not the only factor that's important. Mass is too. Ammo type. But at the end of the day it is what was standard ammo available and what could be done with that ammo.


**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will reply more fully later, but for now I€ll point out that for ALL kinetic energy AP rounds, muzzle velocity is by far the most important factor affecting penetration. Remember that kinetic energy is only directly proportional to mass, but is directly proportional to the square of the velocity. In any case, the mass of the 76.2 mm and 75 mm AP rounds was similar.

Secondly, we€re not talking about some notional €˜average€ performance of these guns, factoring in the odd dud and the ones that shatter. These are meant to be maximum performance figures. Maximum means just that. On this basis, those figures are not credible.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Projectile shatter was a very real phenomenon, first seen operationally in N Africa, where the face=hardened applique frontal armor of German Mk III and Mk IV tanks would cause the uncapped British 2-pounder AP projectiles to break up on impact between 300 and 1400 yards IIRC. See Jentz's book on tank tactics in n Africa for a full discussion.

Blutarski2004
06-28-2005, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
I don't think it is apples vs oranges even if ammo is very different if the question is Tiger ves T-34/76 or Sherman 75.
...
I think it has to do with ammo type/quality, etc, there is something called "shatter gap" as well (it has to do that under certain conditions ammo breaks up, but you would have to really search battleront.com CMBB forums for it to get detailed info, those guys know much more than me...). Muzzle velocity is certainly not the only factor that's important. Mass is too. Ammo type. But at the end of the day it is what was standard ammo available and what could be done with that ammo.


**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will reply more fully later, but for now I€ll point out that for ALL kinetic energy AP rounds, muzzle velocity is by far the most important factor affecting penetration. Remember that kinetic energy is only directly proportional to mass, but is directly proportional to the square of the velocity. In any case, the mass of the 76.2 mm and 75 mm AP rounds was similar.

Secondly, we€re not talking about some notional €˜average€ performance of these guns, factoring in the odd dud and the ones that shatter. These are meant to be maximum performance figures. Maximum means just that. On this basis, those figures are not credible.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Projectile shatter was a very real phenomenon, first seen operationally (tank-wise) in N Africa, where the face-hardened applique frontal armor of German Mk III and Mk IV tanks would cause the uncapped British 2-pounder AP projectiles to break up on impact between 300 and 1400 yards IIRC. See Jentz's book on tank tactics in N Africa for a full discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F_vonIzabelin
06-29-2005, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
I don't think it is apples vs oranges even if ammo is very different if the question is Tiger ves T-34/76 or Sherman 75.
...
I think it has to do with ammo type/quality, etc, there is something called "shatter gap" as well (it has to do that under certain conditions ammo breaks up, but you would have to really search battleront.com CMBB forums for it to get detailed info, those guys know much more than me...). Muzzle velocity is certainly not the only factor that's important. Mass is too. Ammo type. But at the end of the day it is what was standard ammo available and what could be done with that ammo.


**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will reply more fully later, but for now I€ll point out that for ALL kinetic energy AP rounds, muzzle velocity is by far the most important factor affecting penetration. Remember that kinetic energy is only directly proportional to mass, but is directly proportional to the square of the velocity. In any case, the mass of the 76.2 mm and 75 mm AP rounds was similar.

Secondly, we€re not talking about some notional €˜average€ performance of these guns, factoring in the odd dud and the ones that shatter. These are meant to be maximum performance figures. Maximum means just that. On this basis, those figures are not credible.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope, see that, the kind of armour also affects the shell, and face hardend german armour, resulted in shaterring of russian 76.2mm on tigers, and even on pzIV on larger distance.

ImpStarDuece
06-29-2005, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
ImpStarDuece,

I just loaded CM game and checked their armor penetrations/stats for the tanks and guns.

I do not know how accurate those numbers on russian battelfield website are. However the guys at CM did take their job serious and a lot went into reserach. One fellow even wrote a book on WW II armor and ballisitcs.

One of the reasons why russian ammo didn't penetrate so well was poor manufacturing especailly early war and that they had largert HE fillers. (Penetraiton values for same guns do change in CMBB game depending on year by the way due to quality of ammo. The number I give are early war.)

Tiger armor weakest at lower hull, 62mm at 0 angle. Rear is 82mm at a slight angle (8 degrees).

Pz IV C and D are 30mm frontal armor, 7-12 degrees.

45mm L-46 at 757m/sec on T-70 penetration is:

37-33-29 mm for 100-500-1000m at 0 angle.

So T-70 must get close and hit dead on (no side angle) to penetrate front armor.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to snip your response but tanks and armour penetration is one of those things that I used to go nuts about, just like I curently do with aircraft. Guess its an otaku thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't know the game your talking about, but I don't want to discount your research. It seems good to me. Actually, if you have a link to the site for the game please let me know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

However, I just wanted you to clear up a few points for me, if you could.

1) What type of ammo were those penetration figures for?

Mostly I ask because in 1942 the UBR-243P round with armor piercing sub-caliber (APCR) projectile BR-240P became avialable to armoured unit. This gave significantly increased penetration for the 45mm gun as it resloved some of the yaw problems that are associated with full calibre projectiles.

Figures for the BR-20P are as follows:

Round Type Weight M/V
BR-240P HVAP-T 866 1070
Arrowhead shell, tungsten carbide penetrator, tracer in base. Case holds 365g or 380g of 7/7 propellant.


The figures I gave earlier are for the BR-240P. which was much more effective than previous rounds. The more common AP ammo the UBR-243SP round with armor-piercing solid projectile BR-240SP and the UBZR-243 round with armor-piercing incendiary projectile BZR-240, would be less effective and probably more representative of common ammunition distribution. The BR-240P was only put into prodction in March 1942.

Most likely the figures you have represent the more common arrangement; to whit,

Taken from the Russian battlefield site;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Since 1942, production of the 20K was transferred to Factory #235 where 5090 guns were manufactured in 1942, and 3040 were produced in 1943. Production of the 20K was then finally stopped. From the beginning of the 1930's to mid-1943, a 45mm gun system remained practically the only anti-tank gun. This was a result of these guns being able to penetrate the armour of any German tank, prior to 1942, from up to 500 metres. Theoretically, they were superior to the German 37mm Pak36, as they had a more effective HE capability. However, on practice it was doubful due to some flaws with AP ammunition issued in 1941; firing tests indicated certified penetration was about 18-20mm at 500 metres while all sources of that time claimed 35-40mm. Flaws occured due to over-heat the AP projectle so it's nose tended to brake up in piecese during impact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does mention that the 45 AP was limited to 18-20 mm at 500m, which is REALLY poor. I do wonder if that was for the full AP shot, or the sub-calibre though.

Also, remember also that Russian figures for a penetration require at least 75% of the round/round fragments to punch throgh the armour. German figures only require 50% for a 'successful' penetration, so sometimes German figures seem a little higher than they should.

2) The designation L-46, is that a Russian designation or a Western designation? Is is a referance to the calibre length of the gun? I usually see the gun refered to a the M1932/38 or sometime (incorrectly) as the M1942.

Ratsack
06-29-2005, 07:08 AM
Guys,

I€m not saying shatter didn€t happen or didn€t matter. What I am saying is that shatter does not come into these figures. These figures are for idealized maximum penetration, so by definition they are for the rounds that worked. In this context, shatter is irrelevant.

I still don€t find it credible that any full-caliber (~ 6 kg) 75 mm AP round (you said APCBC: armor piercing composite ballistic cap) with a muzzle velocity of under 620 m/s will have penetration 138% better than a similar mass projectile from a 76.2 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 680 m/s.

On those figures the KE of the M4€s projectile is 1,153,200 J. The F-34€s KE is 1,387,200 J. The F-34€s projectile has 20 % more energy than the M4€s. It is just not physically possible for any spalling cap or ballistic cap to translate that 20 % energy deficit into a 38 % penetration bonus. The physics of the proposition do not add up.

There must be something else about these tests that is fundamentally different. It could be the steel (I don€t know if it was specified), or it could be the way penetration is measured, or it could be something else, but I am increasingly confident these figures are not directly comparable.

Ratsack

Ratsack
06-29-2005, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:


Late T34/85 had radio/cupola/3 man turret to fix those problems but unsufficient armor by that time.



**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The commander's cupola was introduced on the 1943 version of the T-34/76. The T-34/85 (early 1944) introduced the 3-man turret. Radios on most tanks were introduced in 1943 also.

Interestingly, the source I have on the T-34 says the 965 m/s figure for the F-34 gun is for the BR-350P round, which was APDS, rather than APCR. The key difference is that the sub-caliber core of the APCR round is carried in a full-caliber sleeve of light-weight alloy. Because the composite round has the frontal area of the full-caliber round but only a fraction of its mass, it loses its velocity €" and therefore its penetrating power €" very rapidly with range. In fact, most APCR rounds in WWII were less effective than the lower-velocity full caliber rounds beyond ranges of 750 m.

In contrast, the sub-caliber core of the APDS round sheds its full-caliber sleeve (or €˜sabot€) just as it leaves the barrel. Its frontal area is thereby reduced, so it retains its killing power to greater range than the APCR round from the same gun with the same propellant.

Ratsack

F_vonIzabelin
06-29-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:


Late T34/85 had radio/cupola/3 man turret to fix those problems but unsufficient armor by that time.



**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The commander's cupola was introduced on the 1943 version of the T-34/76. The T-34/85 (early 1944) introduced the 3-man turret. Radios on most tanks were introduced in 1943 also.

Interestingly, the source I have on the T-34 says the 965 m/s figure for the F-34 gun is for the BR-350P round, which was APDS, rather than APCR. The key difference is that the sub-caliber core of the APCR round is carried in a full-caliber sleeve of light-weight alloy. Because the composite round has the frontal area of the full-caliber round but only a fraction of its mass, it loses its velocity €" and therefore its penetrating power €" very rapidly with range. In fact, most APCR rounds in WWII were less effective than the lower-velocity full caliber rounds beyond ranges of 750 m.

In contrast, the sub-caliber core of the APDS round sheds its full-caliber sleeve (or €˜sabot€) just as it leaves the barrel. Its frontal area is thereby reduced, so it retains its killing power to greater range than the APCR round from the same gun with the same propellant.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, subcaliber sabot ammunition, due to lesser mass, have worse spec. at greater distance, and richocet more often off the armour.
Sabot ammo is most efective up to 500-1000m (differs from gun), and then loses velocity much faster than normal AP, or APBC, or anything else. and the mass of the APDS is still low.

As I said, russian AP rounds quality was very low, which makes for less penetration..

Ratsack
06-29-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F_vonIzabelin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
...the source I have on the T-34 says the 965 m/s figure for the F-34 gun is for the BR-350P round, which was APDS, rather than APCR. The key difference is that the sub-caliber core of the APCR round is carried in a full-caliber sleeve of light-weight alloy. Because the composite round has the frontal area of the full-caliber round but only a fraction of its mass, it loses its velocity €" and therefore its penetrating power €" very rapidly with range. In fact, most APCR rounds in WWII were less effective than the lower-velocity full caliber rounds beyond ranges of 750 m.

In contrast, the sub-caliber core of the APDS round sheds its full-caliber sleeve (or €˜sabot€) just as it leaves the barrel. Its frontal area is thereby reduced, so it retains its killing power to greater range than the APCR round from the same gun with the same propellant.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, subcaliber sabot ammunition, due to lesser mass, have worse spec. at greater distance, and richocet more often off the armour.
Sabot ammo is most efective up to 500-1000m (differs from gun), and then loses velocity much faster than normal AP, or APBC, or anything else. and the mass of the APDS is still low.

As I said, russian AP rounds quality was very low, which makes for less penetration.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quality is irrelevant to this, as I pointed out above. Shattered rounds will not be counted in these figures.

Regarding the performance of APDS rounds at range, please re-read my post above carefully. It's clear you're not understanding the difference between APCR and APDS ammunition.

Ratsack

Dtools4fools
06-29-2005, 10:41 AM
[/QUOTE]<STRIKE>Shattered rounds will not be counted in these figures</STRIKE>

You contradict yourself - German 50% and Russian 70% success needed does take ALL failing in count!!!!! If your shatter is high it will be take in account. And shatter wasn't the "odd" round, it happend regularly on certain ranges!

There are cases where AP round should clearly penetrate armor accoding to CALCULATED penetration capability of given round at certain range. However in certain cases (sometimes 50% or more!!!) the rounds simply broke apart. So that should be certainly included in the armor penetration - in a way that penetration is 0 if going after russian testing... or rahter lowered to the thickness it can reliably penetrate, no?
So it does come into the penetration capability.
Using just one maximum quality rounds pentration would result in completely unrealisitc figures.That's why they had 50 or 70% succes specs in their tests, no?

The guy used US after war test firing results with german, american, russian and british ammo and guns as far as I know btw.

Shatter happens often on high velocity guns, as the round "goes faster" through the steel resulting in more pressure on the round and the round being not strong enough and breaking up. It therefore results in lower penetration ability of that specific round.
On longer range when the round lost some velocity it might penetrate again.

Certainly ammo quality has to be considered in penetration figures in my opinion. It makes not much sense to have one super AAA grade round and thest the gun with it and then claim that gun xy on tank yz could penetrated armor of tank 0815 if that round NEVER made it to the units but they had to use **** CCC quality of the same round which was produce in ther gazillions and delivered to front line units. **** CCC which was used is the one that is important in battle, no?

Yes, there was subcalibre rounds for 45mm, but again on a typical loadout a tank might have 0-4 of those available as they were rare as you mention yourself. So still the lousy regular AP ammo is what they had to fight with. So that number seems to be more relevant for the capabilities of said gun/tank.

Game is Combat Mission Beyond Babarossa (http://battlefront.com/index.htm).

Regarding the 45mm gun:

L/46 is the model 38 gun, the incorrectly 42 gun was not in T-70, but there was a model 42 ATG with L66 caliber (lenght of barrel, yes) as far as I know.

Yep, they got the tungsten core APCR round mentioned, figures are 985m/sec, penetration given 97-64-38. Ammo loadout was 10% (of total of AP) of those if lucky... so better think what you can do with your regular AP round...

As for the US 75 round vs Russian 76 round difference I think there is one think that could make that big diffrenece - said ammo quality. It's not the US 75 guns ability to create more penetration with a lack of energy (agree that this would be physiacally impossible) rahter the opposite - a deficiy of the russian round which results in a less than optimal performance of the russian gun.

If the round is so weak it will simply break up at a certain point and not penetrate. This will result in a lower penetration figure - the thinner armor thickness the round is still able to penetrate realiably without breaking up.

Even bigger is the diffrence if you look at German 75mm guns. And why did their rounds not break up? As far as I know they used top hardened rounds.

In game you can use captured Panthers playing as russians btw and what an outcry of foul play was there as people discovered that those Russian Panthers had less penetration capabilities than German kitties. Game developers answered with resarch showing that russians had to use diffrent (inferior) ammo... Couldn't use the gun to its optimum.

Less effectivness of Sabot on long range (and on sloped armor; that's why those rounds were not used in russian airborne antitank guns in my opinion as there will be a significant angle most of times) is in the game as well, but I did not post those figures as we were somehow in the shorter ranges...

Tiger I had homogenous armor as far as I know.
Late PzIII with 30+30mm were two face hardened plates - it's resistance against russian 76 caused a huge debate on the forum over there.


Anarchy52 sums it up pretty well for the 34/76 in my opinion:

"apparently excellent design not reaching it's full potential"

The T-34/85 was a significantly step forward.
Anothere fine tank showing the potential of the T-34 is the Panther...

IS-2 were pretty impressive, great sloped armor, bit cramped inside (as T-34) to keep weight down and speed up plus a big, big gun - with seperate charge and projectile which resulted in low rate of fire (same goes for IS 152). You better hit with first round (and maybe pull out if missed and if possible) as you might have no chance for second...


Pingu,

yep, i am aware that random quality (topspeed) would cause lot of whine. Sour wi(h)ne...
Even if it would be same for all sides overall...
But then it could be a simple feature that can be turned of on dogfight server or offline play.
Personally I would love it - and I think it would give an even more realisitc touch.

And yes, quality of jocks (at least AI) could be modeled too. In 44/45 you would less likely encounter German vetaran and ace AI, mostly neewbs. Same would go for Japanese planes. Early war west allied might have some disadvantages. Russians might have bigger % off rookies until quite long in the war.

This feature could be a switch-off thingy as well.

Of course human pilots cannot be forced to fly better or worse - but then there might be a big variation anyway... just might... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And more stupid stuff in rookie AI behavior would be fine to me as well... and AI gunners.

Good discussion here!

Marcus
****

Blutarski2004
06-29-2005, 12:50 PM
Posted Wed June 29 2005 11:30
Go here -

http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/browseresults.exe?CISO...E=grid&CISOSTART=241 (http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/browseresults.exe?CISO...E=grid&amp;CISOSTART=241)


and scroll down to article 249. "Swinging the sledgehammer: the combat effectiveness of German heavy tank battalions during World War II".

Platypus_1.JaVA
06-29-2005, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
hi al


I just wanted to say that

In online wars like bellum/vow/CWetcetc..

http://czechwar.vwings.org/

Link above is Czechwar

Ground battle's are inportent

Now my question is

Why the hell is the T34/85& KV1 russian tank Killing almost german tanks of nearly al type's until maybe the tiger even then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif it sucks
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I didn't exactly read the whole thread but, I thought this is a flight sim. And I am glad that the ground objects look good because most of the time, I'll be buzzing them, guns blazing with at least 400 km/h. Do I really care anyways?

Whining about ground objects in a flightsim does really sound a bit odd to me.

p1ngu666
06-30-2005, 10:46 AM
for offline and some coops, it would be cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

IIJG69-Niklaus
07-05-2005, 05:43 PM
I made tests, 3 KV1 vs 3 Tigers... at the further distance that tanks can fire in the game.
And the Kv1 !!
I made the test 2 times before beeing totally disgusted!
1st test: 3 Tigers KO for 1 Kv1
2nd test: 3 Tigers KO for 2 Kv1

I had screenchots, but i deleted them before reading this post, but it's not difficult to make some, so tomorrow I will post some.

I also think that there is a problem with tanks firing accuracy, tanks miss their shot 9times/10, sure, when the tiger hit the KV1, KV1 burns, but he hit so rarely...(this problem seems tp be present with all tanks)

Others tests:

10Pz IIIN vs 10T34: all PzIIIN destroyed, no one T34 destroyed.

10PzIVF2 vs 10 T34: all T34 destroyed for an average of 6-7 PzIV F2 destroyed.

3 Panthers vs 3 Kv1: 3 Kv1 destroyed!! for an 1 or 2 Panthers.

Dtools4fools
07-06-2005, 08:21 AM
Your test show that this ain't a tank simulation...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">all PzIIIN destroyed, no one T34 destroyed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzIIIN has short 75mm gun of early PzIV's. At long ranger not able to penetrate T-34.
III N was a close support tank working with Tigers.
76mm T-34 should have problems to penetrate PzIII front armor at long range, but accurate range shozuld be known and what type of T-34 (76 or 85 gun).
All in all this test seems about right.

10PzIVF2 vs 10 T34: all T34 destroyed for an average of 6-7 PzIV F2 destroyed.

Seems about right. The IV F2 armed with the 75 L43 gun kills T-34 at ease. As longer the range gets as more the 50mm frontal armor will keep 76mm shots out - so to know the accurate distance would be important as well.

"3 Panthers vs 3 Kv1: 3 Kv1 destroyed!! for an 1 or 2 Panthers."

Now that's off. Frontal engagement KV-I will not be able to kill any Panthers - even at close range. All KV-I should die here, zero Panthers.

Same goes for the Tigers vs KV-I. No dead Tigers and all dead KV-I should be the norm.

So that KV-I gun and armor seems too good.
****

Adlerangriff
07-06-2005, 02:52 PM
"Unfortunately the tanks in game do not maneuovre to outflank their heavier or slower opponents as they would have in RL. And neither is the DM of the tanks that complex."



Speak for yourself. Every mission I make uses cover, timing and elevation for the ground forces.

Hull Down positions, flanking and diversionary attacks can all be incorporated into missions, if you care enough to spend the time.

Think of it like a board game.

1. determine ground target.
2. Place static defensive troops.
3. Add Enemy attacking columns.
4. Finish with defensive reinforcements.



Good as gold.

Only problem is you never get off the ground because you are watching the most realistic ground action you will ever see.

Dynamic? No.

Realistic looking? no doubt.

Realistic Results = Yes


Or just buy Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin.

http://www.battlefront.com