Bastables

I thought the Kharkov tank plant only ever manufactured T64 and T80 tanks and their various upgrades (and post soviet rejigs like the T84). The plant actively avoided anything to do with the T72 chassis as it was a successful attempt by the Nizhny Tagil factory and attached design team to avoid making T64's and T80's. The plants that would have experience in upgrading T72M/M1 chassis outside of Russia are the Polish firms and Martin factory in Slovakia. The difference in the T72B to A/M/M1 variants is in the much thicker laminated turret armour (plus uprated engines due to increase in weight) and upgrades to gun and fire control systems to launch ATGM's, I don't see anything theoretically stopping the Bumar Labedy factory upgrading components of the T72's B or A with Polish fire control, Thermal sights, engine and transmission upgrades. It might be easier for Poland to just swap T72's with brand new P91E's which are further development export version of the Pendekers sold to Malaysia.

I'm guessing that slap round did not do it at 4000m or even 1000m.

Fire ports, shooting from on top of apc's, riding on T34-85s during assaults. All suboptimal, all practiced, and all in opposition to "interwar" theory/best practice. Tank riders in CMRT show that not even BTS is above modelling sub-optimal conduct by soldiers if they deem it important enough.

The 88 was used in North Africa successfully when the commonwealth tank forces operated independently (bugger all co-ord with infantry and artillery) and possessed no HE rounds for the 2/6pdr guns. By design and doctrine British tanks were to neutralise anti tank guns and infantry with besa machine guns. The reason why the US 75mm in the M3's and M4's was so loved by commonwealth tankers was the ability to neutralise 8,8 and 5cm guns at all engagement ranges with actual high explosive rounds. As opposed to manfully/ineffectually trying to drive up and machine gun gun crews. Another problem was that the gun shields of PaK's and FlaK's were designed to be proof vs 7,92mm cartridges, like the besa. So under that very specific theater, doctrine, equipment context a 2.5 min setup time actually works. Unit histories of Luftwaffe specialised anti tank Flak units during Normandy show utterly ineffectual trades vs Allied tanks with HE guns and competent artillary. German attempts to stem rampaging T34's and KV1 prior to Moscow in 41 also tend to also result in the elimination of entire FlaK, 10,5cm and 10cm gun batteries because the Russian believed in having HE shells in "large calibers" in their tanks like everyone else except the Royal Armoured corp. Things that happened in afrika do not necessarily happen else where, also things that happen in 42 afrika are not necessarily true at the end of 42 or 43.

Not sure about that, most armies activity discourage riding and firing from on top of their apc's/IFV's, soldiers ignore it and promptly ride leaning out of hatches and shooting from on top of the veh's. Shooting man pads from the top of one's apc seems to be more in line with the natural inclination of personal comfort and conservation of energy inspite of "peace-time" army best practice. The whole M113 ACAV kits/deployment is a case study in "best practice" being ignored and then changed.

The whole 7 course meal with constant toasting while wearing mess kit is a regt tradition ingrained in commonwealth armies, it's always opened with a toast to the monarch . Did not know the USMC did it though. On yah mate. Some place hot.

Thing to remember is that both the Russians and the Germans used ap shells, or AP rounds with HE burster charges in them. So using them against even "soft" but still vehicle targets is not counter intuitive. Especially when the germans called the ap shell a tank grenade, but then again they called their solid APCR a tank grenade as well so

Yeah you're not in bad company there, Len Deighton in his book (Blitzkrieg) on 39-40s pointed out even during the French Campaign the german army was losing trucks faster than it was making them just due to wear and tear, on actual networked tar roads. This was reflected in the Germans switching from preferred six wheeled truck to settling for any old 2x4 trucks. But in saying that the Russians did defeat the germans with even less motorisation and with T34's with 200km mechanical average life expectancy. By contrast "unreliable" panther, late war PIV, Hetzer were at 200km as well due to transmission failures. So it did play a part but it seems the Russians were better at later in the war planning offensives in line with their mechanical capabilities.

All the Panther's, they're variable speed to tied to the engine rpm and a high and low speed option. 46 seconds 360degree at 1000rpm and 17 seconds at governed 2500rpm.

You have no idea of eastern front battles, Spring awakening included on the axis side. HG Süd 6.Armee (Armeegruppe Balck): III.Pz.Korps: 1.Pz.Div., 3.Pz.Div., 6.Pz.Div. (deployed later), 356. Inf.Div. 6.Pz.Armee: I.SS-Pz.Korps: 1.SS-Pz.Div., 12.SS-Pz.Div., 23.Pz.Div. (deployed later), II.SS-Pz.Korps: 2.SS-Pz.Div., 9.SS-Pz.Div., 44.Reichs-Gren.Div. I.Kav.Korps: 3.Kav.Div., 4.Kav.Div., 25.ung.Inf.Div. (deployed later). 2.Pz.Armee: LXVIII.AK: 16.SS-Pz.Gren.Div., 71.Inf.Div., XXII.Geb.AK: 118.Jäg.Div., 1.Volks-Geb.Div. HG Südost: LXXXXI.AK: 104.Jäg.Div., 297.Inf.Div., 11.Luft.Feld.Div., 1.Kos.Div. Wiki idea that 31 tanks "lost" is odd as by the 20th March 6th SS it self was down to 80 Pz/StuG's/JadgPz from starting with over 300 (over 400 runners committed including the 2 Pz Armee) It also does not square with Russian examination of the area post battle. “Upon completion of the combats between 29 March-10 April 1945, the artillery staff of the 3rd Ukrainian Front in presence of representatives of NIBT Poligon, Ammunition Narkomat (ministry) and artillery branch of the Soviet Army conducted again the inspection and research of the knocked out German combat machines in the area of Balaton Lake, Elusha canal, Kapos canal, Sharviz canal, Sekesfehervar. In the course of work the committee accounted and observed nine hundred sixty eight (968) knocked-out, destroyed or abandoned tanks and SP guns as well as four hundred forty six (446) personnel carriers (SdKfz). Many vehicles previously inspected in February 1945 were also included in statistics. Four hundred machines, which were the most interesting for research had been marked and examined. All heavy tanks and new brands of SP guns underwent the special study. Out of 400 examined destroyed tanks and SP guns there were 19 units of Tiger II, 6 units of Tiger, 57 units of Panther, 37 units of Pz-IV, 9 units of Pz-III (mostly flamethrowers, Pz BeobWg III and commanders’ tanks), 140 units of SP guns (StuG, Jagdpanzer etc.), 27 tanks and SP guns of Hungarian brands and 105 units of other vehicles (Wirbelwind, Wespe, Bergepanther, Brummbar, Hummel, SdKFZ 138 Ausf. etc.). Among the examined 400 vehicles, 389 vehicles were destroyed by the artillery fire, 11 tanks were either exploded on mines or destroyed by other means. By main statistical parameters the result of this inspection were similar to the one conducted in February 1945. The new finding was that the number of armor penetrations made by 76mm AP shells and 57mm AP shells became almost equal. The number of penetrations caused by 100-122 mm shells increased by 2.5-3.2 %. “ (a. O.Baronov, Balaton Defense Operation, Moscow, 2001, PP.82-106 b. Inspection of German armored vehicles, discovered after combats in the area of Balaton Lake, Elusha canal, Kapos canal, Sharviz canal, Sekesfehervar. April 1945 – Central Archive of the Russian Defense Ministry)

Or the Balton lake offensives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_Awakening ( largest German attack in 45), or that 1945 saw the focus of German armoured units back to the east after the failed ardennes offensive. 15 March 1945 East PzIV 603, PzV 776. West PzIV 59, PzV 152. If the issue is why bother covering Germany getting "crushed" in 45, why would you be interested in covering 40s France being "steamrolled"?

Optics are mounted in the mantle so large calibre strikes on the mantle can damage them. This is only a noticed issue if your mantlet armour is thick enough vs the guns it faces that the worse thing that happens is the sight breaks up due to non penetrating hits. Hamptmann Bollert OC, I abt, Pz reg 2, report 9-19 October 1943 : The telescopes of the T.Z.F 12 gun sights break apart as a result of hits on the gun mantlet. The expenditure of protective lens for the T.F.Z 12 is very high. ( 1995 Jentz pg 138). There's a reason why gunsights tend to be roof mounted nowadays. Note one of the features of the proposed series production Panther schmalturm was a periscope gun sight, so they knew there was a design flaw in mounting sights in the gun mantlet. The long 7,5cm was also recorded to have been put out of action by AT rifle penetrators bulging the interior of the barrel rendering it inoperable.

Or accusation usually false . . .

What I thought I was waiting on you Resend your turn mate I've probably lost the email by now

Yeah they (armoured Cav) stuck around and did thing's like Patay, Formigny and again the finishing move by Breton Heavy cav at Castillon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon The fact that a member of Elizabeth II family is not also the standing Duchess/Duke of Normandy should indicate that longbow's were not a foolproof answer to armoured French cav.

What reports on average range rifle engagements are you implying to cite? The few Commonwealth ones I've read tend to point out that Rifle men are not effective because they're not shooting for effect when their are no visible targets, it's a completely different problem where commonwealth range training disinclines soldiers from shooting during what we would term fire fights now. The commonwealth was not shooting to suppress. This is utterly worthless comparison with tanks shooting at fully visible tanks charging towards them. Never mind the fact that the targets are much larger than individual men. It's also physically impossible for tanks to "pepperpot" aka run 3-4 steps go prone then crawl to another position and then bound forward again; tanks can't change their target picture when moving forwards.

Really, you're going to disassemble away from "I guess they built the T34 simply because it was the best design they came up, regardless of what the Germans were doing." While skittering around the definitions of match . . . More power to you I guess.

Not so sure about the latter. I'm sure that the whole point of designing the T34 was in reaction to experience in the Spanish civil war onwards: that thinly and high hardness armoured 30era tanketts do very poorly verses the small 3,7/4,5cm anti tank guns. The T 34 armour thickness and angling was expressly designed to make enemy anti tank guns that Soviet tanks had faced in the 30's irrelevant. The T-34 was developed to over match German and Japanese antitank guns and was a direct reaction to the effectiveness in Spain of the later much derided Pak 36 and Italian 47mm infantry guns. Read about the Tank offensive in the Brunete sector to relive Madrid ( Includes stories of a PaK 36 in a church steeple knocking out 13 T26's). Soviet post battle reports note what was at the the time high numbers of guns per km: 26.6 guns per kilometer compared to an average of 13.8 guns per kilometer on the front as a whole. The same issue of 37mm guns of even low velocity popping soviet armour during the battles with Japan in Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol resulted in the A-20 prototype receiving Sloped 32mm armour resulting in the A-32, they further up armoured and up gunned it resulting in the T 34 production variant. So yeah they were developing the T34 to match the Germans/Japanese/Italians specifically the 3,7cm and 4,7cm guns that were used against the T26's and Bt's. The T-34 did exactly what it said on the tin (proof against anti tank guns) until the increasing employment of overmatching 7,5cm high velocity guns. The idea that the Soviets came up with weapon designs in a vacuum is a bit odd, and not at all what happened.

Post Normandy Hitler decided that fresh Panther's should be placed in independent Panzer Brigades in battalions of 36, the immolation of Panzer Divisions and their rebuilding post normandy was thought to take too long to face off vs Anglo-American overrunning France. Although initially the idea was to imbed Bake's "Panzer Brigade/kampfgruppe" success in a formation . . . wishful thinking as it ignored the kampagruppe coming from the training and experience of being in a pz division and all subsequent pz brigades lacked Bake leading them. About 10 (and another 10 later comprising a Panzer regt as opposed to a single panther battalion) of them were formed (based around a Panther regt) with small infantry and no artillery or engineer support. Model complained to C&C west Von Rundstedt september 1944 "The formation and use of Independent Panzer brigades outside the framework of the Panzer Divisions has not been successful in previous fighting." http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=n86Ww8zePvIC&pg=PT237&lpg=PT237&dq=independent+panzer+brigades&source=bl&ots=Nf6vXg1O1i&sig=0ieZ-Yu-mPazM8Lm6jpVnKOLRNY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NXMgVOGwHtDY8gXLwoGoCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=independent%20panzer%20brigades&f=false The loss of Panther's and PIV especially in their employment in Panzer Brigades directly led to the replacement in panzer divisions of PIV/70 in 44/45 in the Panzer divisions 2nd battalions. It also adversely affected the replacement and training of crews being fed back into the panzer divisions. Panzer Lehr on the 6th of June had an authorised strength of: 99 Pz IV 89 Pz V 31 Jgpz IV 10 StuG III 8 Tigers (5 Tiger II) 36 Fkl The 5 Tiger II's were preproduction models and left at Chateaudun when the Division was deployed to Normandy, they were destroyed in place to prevent capture and never saw action. Normandy saw Panzer Lehr at it's highest panzer strength, it never had 2 battalions of Panthers.

You're just citing the bits of jentz that accord with your agenda aka wapruf 6 calculations not actual firing tests. The actual reports in Jentz panzertruppen vols I and II show successful engagements of 1200m and 1600m with the KwK 40 7,5cm gun verses the front of T 34s. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=38951 4. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 front hull at 1000m with a 30 degree side angle during 1942 Russian firing tests, according to Valera Potapov notes from Russian report he reviewed. This result is consistent with 1600m maximum penetration range when gun is lined up with T34 hull direction 3. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m at any angle, with 1600m max range, spring 1942. Report included in T. Jentz' Panzertruppen Volume I. Based on 45 mm of armour, if the t34 has 55mm of armour Rexford cites the reports citing 1200m upper limit pentrations. Also re read jentz in particular the panzer truppen vols.

I think the biggest issue is 8xPIV vs 14xT34s, German's have a higher incidence of crack and vet crews but the jerry's are quite outnumbered.

Thanks for taking the time for making this Ian. Always "fun" to see period tactical symbols. It's surprisingly easy to cotton on to both the German and Russian symbology. All the NATO symbols are the ultimate expression of readability might have been self aggrandising faff. If symbols and signifiers are logical it's seems it's much easier to comprehend than say learning another language. Cheers and again thanks.

I'm not seeing this when I play the game, it's 45 mm sloped, brittle and heavily overmatched by the 75mm gun. To make the armour proof vs the German 75mm with the IS2 they had to have 120mm at 60 deg. The T34 is not even close to meeting that standard. In the The Passage I'm penetrating T34's at 1600m, I lost a T34 the first time around after a non penetrating hit at 3-400m on the lower front hull, the Piv then put a round through the gun mount killing the gunner and forcing a bail. It seems to be about the angles of the hulls. I just finished a match of the Passage vs the ai with 13 out of 14 T34's dead and 5 dead PIV with 3 runners.

PIV and T34-85 match up is equal, both can kill each other at 1600m, with either side not having the superior tank does not mean you're inferior.

They certainly tried to use them as a cm player. In Normandy FlaK III Korp defending div rear areas, towns, rail yards ect(also indirect fire) also deployed Flakkampfgruppen or anti aircraft combat sections trained for ground combat. They were not successful in Normandy losing 35 8,8cm guns and 70 light Flak in exchange for 20 tanks knocked out. But the Germans did like deploying them in forward positions to shoot ground targets. The Germans were so enamoured with the idea that even rear area FlaK Korps tasked with defending important centres behind the lines had special detachments that operated with divisions as front line support as well as those divisions organic Flak guns. (2000 Zetterling pg153).