T-34\85

And again, you're focusing on SGDs and nothing else. Jane's is also one of the informed sources that rightly calls the "T-72B1 = super T-72B" bullcrap, so I don't see why you're picking and choosing. Not to mention that this: Doesn't say *where* on either side of the turret, so I don't see why you think this helps you (though there was an early T-72B that had such) though this was never the sole part of my argument- the visuals of the armour package are much more important, and the screenshots don't reflect this. Fact also reamins that most T-72Bs seen have them on the turret sides, not on either side of the main gun.

That is not a "Russian" source. Just because it has a ".ru" doesn't mean that the information cut and pasted there is necessarily of Russian origin, as amply demonstrated by aeronautics.ru. I'll trust Vasiliy Fofanov and Jane's over that inaccurate drivel any day- the elementary "T-72B1" and "T-72BV" mistake gives it all away. I suggest you email him. Not the most important visual difference. The thicker armour with the cut-out bottom is most important. Furthermore, while some T-72Bs have indeed been seen with front mounted SGDs, they are very rare. How does this source prove your argument? It doesn't. The T-72B is differentiated from other versions by visual differences. In particular, the Yugoslav M-84 has very little to do with the T-72B. The Germans never had T-72Bs, so I don't see how you think this is relevant. Only one of those tanks you see on that page is a T-72B- the top one. In actual fact, it may be a T-72S, the export version of the T-72B, since the pic originates from the Army Technology website. The rest are T-72Ms and T-72M1s. That's a vague statement. The T-72B is what it's important, all it's identifying features. You're just obsessing over SGDs. Bunch of photos, actually- some of which are T-72Bs, and some of which aren't. So? The turret armour is still too thin, and using a T-72B from the early 80s of which very few real pictures exist (all of your front mounted SGDs being T-72Ms and T-72M1s) makes little sense and just serves to confuse. [ March 10, 2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: T-34\85 ]

This is an interesting example of the contradictions and errors you'll find on the internet that I referred to in the K-V thread: http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armored_vehicles/t-72a_m.htm Notice that the pages are scans from Jane's AFV identification handbook (I have a more current version), and confirm that T-72B1 is just a T-72B without the ATGM. However, the same page also cut and pastes from the website sources claiming the T-72B1 is some sort of improved T-72B. Guess which one is correct?

See my reply to you Those sources are in serious error. Assuming the T-72B1 is some sort of super T-72B is a classic mistake. Hang out at tanknet.org, email knowledgable people, get a look at some good source material, the first site you see on the internet is no substitute for that.

Those listings are in error. For example, the T-72B1 is identical to the T-72B except that its cheaper. The "1" denotes that is is not equipped with the very expensive Svir/Refleks ATGM system. This also applies to the T-64B and the T-62M, for example (except that they were equipped with the Kobra and Sheksna ATGM systems, respectively)- they had cheaper versions known as T-64B1 and T-62M1. In addition, there's no such thing as a "T-72BV". Just another peculiar "gotcha!" of Soviet tank designations. There is of course a T-72AV and T-80BV, but the T-72B was intended to mount Kontakts ERA in battle from the start, and so never got a seperate "v", according to Vasiliy Fofanov. In truth, the T-72A was the "Dolly Parton". The T-72B was the "Super Dolly Parton".

? I find it hard to believe Soviet infantry were forbidden of doing so given how often they did it.

http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/t-72b.htm A good one. Looks like T-72Bs on parade in the USSR (the T-72B was never exported outside the USSR, of course) There's also this one, a good closeup of the turret with the much thicker armour very obvious: http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/Russe/vehicules_lourds/T-72B/T-72B_Russe_06.jpg

The T-72B has never employed Kontakt-V ERA. That's only for the T-72BM. The T-72B has been equipped with Kontakt ERA, however, that's first generation kit only useful against HEAT charges. Of course, nowadays in T-72B pics in Chechnya and such you'll never see a T-72B without Kontakts, so it's odd its not in the screenshots, but then again,see the thread I made about the in-game model not being a T-72B.

The T-72B looks different from that. It does not have smoke grenade launchers across the front of the turret like the model in the game, it's SGDs are along the sides. It also should have much thicker frontal armour with "cutouts" near the bottom to allow the turret to turn. A simple google image search for T-72Bs should reveal the discrepancy.

What, the JS-3 not having textures will make people not buy the game?

The T-44 and JS-3 still don't get their models Oh the wait is killing me ....

We must stop bumping this thread. I suggest that everyone on the entire board take part in a census on this thread on whether we should be bumping it :cool:

That's not semantics. You committed the false cause logical fallacy. And to assert that Citadel failed only because it was called off is utterly incorrect. Do you intend to backup your claim that with any evidence?

Nay, it will only be the uber-patch when the T-44 and JS-3 are given their models

Funny thing ... I have a book that you can probably get discount from anywhere ... Inside the Soviet Army ... 1990-91 book and obviously didn't sell as well as it was supposed to considering the fall of it subject matter ... but I swear to god there was a modern pic in there of a German Shepherd and its trainer ... the dog had what looked like a bomb pack on its back and some sort of trigger in its mouth. Dont know what it was ......

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: The knocked out Panthers, no matter how badly off they are, are captured and melted down for use in Soviet industry. They are quite truly lost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was this Soviet practice? Cool. Would it still be practice I wonder ... right now I'm picturing an M1A2 Abrams being melted down after its smoking wreckage was picked off a battlefield in Russia; after its platoon was annihilated by a company of T-90s The Panther definitely doesn't deserve the title of the 'grandaddy' of modern MBTs ... as it was said the Panther didnt do *anything* the T-34 hadn't already done.

All I can say that nothing on my system has changed at all since I got CM except my video card, which I upgraded to a Hercules Geforce Prophet 2 MX ... CM ran fine for a good long while after the upgrade with no 'not responding' errors/wierd stuff during the computer player thinking/ blue bar phase before it plays out the 60 secs. I've got 250meg RAM and even though sometimes I got the message when C:\ was a little full that I had run out of hard drive space (I dont get this msg anymore ive got 570 megs free on it now) I could still go back to CM from the desktop. Maybe that new Panther A mod I downloaded got corrupted or something .... I've got no idea

I was one of the first to order CM and I must say its been really stable and has never ever stuffed up on me. But now, I *think* since updating to 1.12, its crashing on me. Well, not crash, but its becoming unplayable. When I push Go there's a chance that during the "computer player thinking" stage or when the blue bar at the bottom of the screen is making its progress from left to right the progress bars will just STOP. If I push enter, escape or space etc. I get returned to my desktop no harm done. I've tried reinstalling and patching it again ... no luck the same stuff happens. Anyone have any ideas? thanx guys

Cool clarification on the spaced armor issue rexford, thanx a bunch Pzkpfw 1; I'd definitely have to say that five T-34s is better than 1 Panther and definitely better than 1 PzIV ... with the Panther at least you have a measure of superiority ... the Soviet Union could sustain the horrendous losses it took ... if they could've reduced their losses (Stalin early war stuff ups aside) I'm sure the Red Army would've ... but this was a fight for national survival and they through everything in ... yes the average crewman was worse than his German counterpart and they paid the price in horrendous casualties but their simply wasn't the time to have a better standard of training and/or Panther equivalent (T-44 was the successor of the T-34\85 I believe ... not produced in large numbers; superseded by the T-54 ... beaut tank for the 50's) I certainly wouldn't have spent the time and resources on improving the army training and resources and draining all-important production levels (as switchovers to new equipment produce) to achieve an increased measure of superiority ... and whats more give the Third Reich more time to establish a defense against your counter offensives and bring up more and more material to the front ... 'undestroyed' I think is the term. Not to mention letting the dirty filthy capitalist glory grabbing pig scum getting to Berlin first when they did jack crap compared to the USSR in fighting Nazi Germany.

Unfortunately yes; in the field of being a tanker instead of engaged in pure 'military arithmetic' I'd prefer to be in a Panther too; most of the time. But; most T-34s were not lost to enemy tanks, they were lost to anti-tank weapons ... anti-tank guns; Schrecks and Fausts etc ... especially in the later stages of the war when the Soviet Union was inexorably advancing ... and many of these T-34s that had been knocked out were back on the battlefield (with new crew) in no time apparently ... there are stats on the Russian Battlefield page to show the losses of T-34s to various types of weapons ...

Sorry if someone's already put this article up This article is just great! I found it on Russian Battlefied, the new site that resulted from the joining of Russian Military Zone and I Remember A lot of the observations in this article have been made on this forum but I think its well worth the read considering CM2 .... Especially interesting is the comments about the Pz III ... it was my understanding the Pz III couldnt be upgraded to hold any gun bigger than 50mm and the Pz IV was a better candidate for upgunning ... but its interesting to know the Russians were impressed by the Pz III. The issue of armor brittleness is funny considering I saw on this forum some pictures of Panthers whose armor had been plain and simple shattered like an egg shell -------------------------------------------- Necessary Observations Regarding the Comparison of Tanks A common occurrence in our field is the attempt compare two tanks, and even more frequently to answer the questions, "What was the best tank of World War II?" and "What was the Wehrmacht's best tank?" How should one make these and similar comparisons? By what parameters should tanks be compared? Can such comparisons be reasonably made at all? In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is not the tanks themselves that are being compared, but numbers-simply the tactical and technical characteristics (TTCh). Sometimes we need to be reminded that the TTCh of any combat vehicle are, generally speaking, often idealized. They can differ significantly from the characteristics of the actual vehicles. In arguments of this nature quality often is not even mentioned, rather, a categorical assertion of the type "the running gear of this tank is better". End of discussion. This, seemingly, settles many disagreements, as frequently no one disagrees. But what does "better" mean? Better as compared to what? What is the basis for assertions regarding armor penetrability? This is a relatively complex process that in and of itself provides only a quantitative measurement. It does not speak at all to the issue of the probability of defeating the target. For example, the IS-2 was able to defeat the German Panther from a range of 1,500 metres. Yes, that is true. But what was the likelihood that this would occur? In addition to the obvious matter of armor penetration, there were two other very important factors: optics and the subjective evaluation of the gunner, that is, the person who directly employed the optics. How does one now make the comparison? Everyone sees in the TTCh of a tank the thickness of its armor, but few go to the effort of understanding its quality. What is this armor made of? What is its chemical composition? By what technological method was it manufactured? In the best case for the most "experienced" one can encounter a mathematical expression of armor hardness on the Brinnel scale. Hardness is very important, but by far not everything! What about brittleness? Steel can be very hard, but at the same time brittle. In fact, this occurred with German armor in 1944-45. All this remains "below the radar", when in fact the resistance of armor to penetration depends upon its quality. For example, the forged armor of the Ferdinand was significantly more resistant to armor-piercing rounds than, say, the rolled armor of the Panther. Similar comments can be made in regards to tank gun ammunition, which is often overlooked too briefly. The caliber, weight, and muzzle velocity of a particular round are pointed out and this is considered sufficient. But this is by far not enough information! In the first place, what type of round is it: armor-piercing, sub-caliber, and so on? There are many nuances and hidden dimensions. For example, is it a chambered (APHE) or solid-shot round? In some cases this has decisive significance, for example, in the case of the German so-called "spaced" armor. The Germans utilized this armor in some later production Pz-III tanks. A 20 mm sheet of supplemental armor was secured to the standard 50 mm frontal armor, with a small space between the hull and the add-on sheet. When an APHE shell struck this armor, the detonator functioned upon contact with the first sheet of armor, which caused premature detonation of the round. As a result the main armor remained intact. For example, the A-19 122 mm field cannon, and later standard armament for the IS-2 tank and the ISU-122 self-propelled gun, fired only a chambered armor-defeating round. As a result of this, the Pz-III could not be defeated in a frontal shot even by the 122 mm gun, while famous Panther was penetrated straight through even from 1,000 metres. In the same fashion, there is a large difference between blunt-nosed and sharp-nosed projectiles. The effect of "normalization" permitted the blunt-nosed projectile (more precisely, a sharp-nosed projectile with blunt tip and ballistic cap - APCBC) better to penetrate sloped armor than a normal pointed projectile. Once again the matter turns on the quality of employment. For example, here is a well known condition that existed in the early part of the war. Theoretically, the Soviet 45 mm projectile should have penetrated the armor of the German Pz-III tanks, but in practice this frequently did not occur. Tests were conducted to determine the causes for this. The tests showed that the projectiles had been re-heated during production, resulting in the reduction of their armor-penetrating capability. And now it is becoming clear that the comparison of two tanks is not a simple matter. It is also not so easy as it seems to so many people. What is meant by the question of the "best tank"? To this day many believe that the German King Tiger was the best tank. Let us stipulate this. Let us agree also that the Germans were not fools (how else could they have produced the "best tank in the world"?). Now we must ask ourselves, why did the Germans, who we have agreed are not fools, not halt the production of all their other tanks and throw all their productive resources into the manufacture of the "best tank in the world"? The answer is that this tank was extremely expensive to produce. And now we have exposed its first deficiency. Simplicity and efficiency of production are critical factors. History confirms this. It was apparent that it was better to have five T-34s or Shermans than a single Panther. The same may also be said concerning the critical factor of reparability, that is, ability to correct damage to the tank without sending it back to the factory. In this regard, the German Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger come out rather poorly, according to the testimony of a large number of German engineers. The Soviet T-34 possessed exceptional reparability. There are many confirmed cases where a damaged tank was transported to a field repair base and a few hours later was back in combat. (The Germans considered this tank as destroyed, and would-be Wittmans added it to their scores! Here is yet another source of myths.) It turned out that unification (standardization) had exceptional significance. An enormous number of various armored vehicles were created on the basis of the T-34. But this is not all. Unification can substantially ease the repair of tanks, the training of repair personnel, driver-mechanics, and crews in general. The Germans also had their own "T-34", the German Pz-III tank, on the basis of which were also created a large number of vehicles. Soviet specialists gave this tank high marks and were quite surprised by the fact that by the end of the war the Germans in essence abandoned it and undertook to construct the fantastic monsters like the King Tiger, Maus, and other designs. While it would seem that the decision was obvious: unification and utilization of the outstanding chassis from the Pz-III. Many people attempt to explain the superiority of one tank over another by placing them in some kind of ideal conditions, that is, those conditions in which these tanks never fought and will never fight. For example, on a field as level as a table, like knights on a jousting field. If tanks were tested in this manner, then mobility, reliability, and cross-country performance would not be needed! Why bother? Make the armor thicker and the cannon more powerful and success will be ensured! Why do the engineers of all countries test new vehicles in field trials? Why are the reliability of individual components and the tank as a whole subjected to such intense scrutiny? In addition, the overwhelming majority forget that some vehicles were created in general not for combating other tanks but, shall we say, for storming of fortifications, or supporting friendly infantry. And still another widespread misunderstanding. Efforts are made to compare two tanks using statistics of losses of these tanks in several operations. Overall losses of tanks of a given type are chosen for this and then it is determined which loss numbers are smaller. This is unreliable at its roots, since the cause of the losses is totally unclear. It is possible that tanks drove into a minefield or were destroyed by aviation. But it is most probable (and statistics confirm this) that the tanks fell victim to antitank artillery. A tank is too expensive an item to be used simply as an antitank weapon. And in the Soviet and German armies missions for the destruction of tanks were assigned first of all to antitank, field, and self-propelled artillery. Tanks were advised, conversely, to avoid direct engagements, since this led to unjustified losses. It was recommended to operate only from cover and ambush. And only in the concluding phase of the war did the Germans, clearly having lost the war, change their tactics. This did not help but only increased their losses. German and Soviet design engineers, like the engineers of all countries, compared tanks. But they compared them not to establish "the best over the best", but to discern the strong and weak aspects of the tanks and in order to understand what an obvious or potential enemy possesses. Such a comparison is useful for domestic tank design and production. What is the purpose in endless arguments by amateurs, overwhelming numbers of whom have never been in a tank, and many have not once seen a tank up close? ---------------------------------------------

Altering the TOE of an Operational Art of War scenario to give Germany the best it ever had in place of all the average rubbish (god how I hate the PzIV ... whats the point of playing as the Germans if you're using a Nazified Sherman!) has revealed that it does make a difference ..... but at least in TOAW it won't bring you victory ... especially on the Russian front!

What if the Wehrmacht, Waffen SS and Luftwaffe got everything they wanted? Every infantryman with a Stg-44, nothing but Panthers (no pissy PzIVs), King Tigers in place of Tigers, nothing but Jagdpanthers as tank destroyers (no Hetzers, no Jagdpanzer IVs)... Me-262s (with reliable engines) in place of the Me-109 and Fw-190 .... it boggles the mind I love modelling a scenario in The Operational Art of War to reflect that

whoops double post [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 01-11-2001).]

Cross of Iron! Cross of Iron! Beautiful Soviet weapons (including T-34\85 on loan from Yugoslavia and the Ppsh41 sub machine gun) ... great battle scenes, an awesome final scene ... cool opening and ending credits ... great acting (james coburn!) yes, i love that movie [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 01-11-2001).]