T-34\85

Maybe this has been covered but I was wondering about people's thoughts about how practical it wouldve been to instead of just manufacturing the expensive, cumbersome and ridiculously well-armored King Tiger, they could've just altered the regular Tiger design to mount an 88mm L71, and slope its thick armor ... would this have been feasible? It seems like a cheaper solution.

One of the advantages of an ATGM with a 5km range is that you can plink the obvious command tank of an enemy company or platoon quite easily. The Svir ATGM is also a top-attack weapon so there's no question of its frontal armor protecting it. Also, the T-72 was never meant to be a hi-tech tank, this was a NATO intelligence stuff up. It was the T-64 that was the Soviet Unions best kept secret until the T-80 came out (it was the first to mount a 125mm gun, and the first with combination armor) ... in Warsaw Pact force allocations the T-72s were mostly located in the Soviet Union proper, while T-64s and T-80s were massed in the forward areas. You could say the T-72 in its original form is sort of a Pz IV. Regardless the T-72BM while not nearly a match for an M1 tank for tank could still put up a good fight (T-34\76 vs Panther probably) Regardless in a best modern MBT question the crews shouldn't be taken into account, America isn't the only country with M1s you know. [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 08-03-2000).]

The T-90 is nothing but a stop-gap measure, a superupgraded T-72, with all systems upgraded. Regardless, it can give an M1A2 a very good run for its money with its ATGMs, Shtora system, Kontakts-5 ERA, and the latest 125mm ammo (think T-34\85 vs Panther). It doesnt matter tho because when the T-95 comes out the world of tanks will be knocked on its ass The Leopard 2A6 is also superior to the M1A2, confirmed both by simply looking at both tanks and the results of the Greek Army tank trials that took place earlier this year (a 2A5 beat the M1A2). The 2A6 has a lengthened 120mm (L55 instead of 44) and Chobham armor like the Abrams and Challenger 2. Couple that with the simple fact its German. [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 08-02-2000).]

Yes ERA is expended after being hit, but the blocks are so small that the chance of the same place getting hit twice in the same engagement are pretty negligible. And yes the crappy survivability (regarding ammunition explosions) of the T-72 and T-80 series (save the T-80UM2) does unfortunately carry on to the T-90 ... but you've got to ask yourself do the ammo blow out panels which supposedly make the M1 more 'survivable' really matter in the thick of combat? If the turret is penetrated from any angle by virtually any competent tank round the whole crew is probably dead anyway regardless of the ammo explosion. Anyway, as I said, the ammo explosion problem is being fixed completely with the T-95 and its crew being housed in the unitary armored pod with no exposure to the main gun or its ammuntion. And no they don't have the funding for large scale production right now. But remember I said in a war situation. All that peace economics bull goes out the window when a war starts. Look at Germany before WW2.

Dan Weaver: "The T-90 has a main gun equal to the M1A2/Leopard 2A5: False. The 2A46M1 has been outperformed by the Rheinmetall for years." the T-90 doesnt use a 24A6M1, it uses an M2 model. The whole point of the T-90 is that its basically a super-upgraded T-72. Coming standard with the Shtora system its also more survivable against SACLOS missiles than an M1A2 (combined with the ERA). Concerning the performance of Kontakts-5, I dont see how what youre saying refutes the US army test results reported by Janes: I saw the picture, the DU penetrator was bending and shattering. "Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15: "IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION "Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US. "Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles. "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles." Concerning the armor of the M1, Iraq is really not worth comparing ... the Iraqis manufactured their own ammunition for their tanks which was way inferior to standard Soviet ammunition ... explaining the really poor showing of the already old dodgy export model T-72s (with badly trained crews) against the M1A1s. I'd like to see how the frontal armor of an M1 performs against the new Russian triple-charge HEAT round. And also, I wasnt implying Russia has thousands of T-90 tanks, but that in a war situation it would "quickly become" a situation where the much more complex M1s would be hopelessly outnumbered. Russian industry is still there folks, tho latent. But anyway the T-90 is merely a stopgap until the T-95 with its 152mm main gun (completely sealed off from the crew who are in a unitary armored pod in the hull, with no access to the turret) comes along anyway (and new generation Kaktus ERA, combined with the Drozd-2 or Arena APS and an IR shroud) [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 07-31-2000).]

I think it was pretty much proven by the WW2 experience which tanks are the best ... the ones you can produce a ton of. The award goes to the T-90. In a war situation it would quickly become a case of 10 T-90s vs 1 M1A2s. The T-90 has a main gun equal to the M1A2/Leopard 2A5, tho its fire control is not as capable (but more capable than the T-72BM and T-80UM), its armor is also about equal with the addition of Kontakts-5 ERA that makes it invincible to M1A2 cannon rounds at medium to long range (US army test data). [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 07-30-2000).]

Hate to be the King Tiger person but hey, the King Tiger rocks ...... its huge, its gun is ridiculously long, its turret is ridiculously big ...... come on what more could you want out of an invincible tank!

Well when I said infantry I did mean Mechanized Infantry ... but considering the Soviets pracitcally invented the Infantry Fighting Vehicle with the BMP I find it strange that Russian tanks still cary a heavy HE loadout while Western tanks in general carry hardly any, especially in the case of the US since the Bradley is pretty much a disaster if some critics are to be believed.

Since the Abrams doesn't carry anything except tank killing ammunition (same goes for Leopard, LeClerc and Challenger 2 ... the latter of which uses high explosiove squash head rounds as well) ... then it seems like they've pretty much cut out the infantry killing role of the tank ... which leaves killing infantry to, well, the infantry, with no real heavy support save artillery ... which isn't all that timely or accurate ... Russian tanks on the other hand carry an extremely heavy high explosive armament ... more than anti-armor rounds actually judging by the T-90's ammo load (I read somewhere that western tank guns are charachterised by their excellent anti-armor capability while soviet guns by their high explosive power). Tanks on the western side have pretty much lost their breakthrough role it seems.

Didn't Hitler order the MP44 to be renamed the Sturmgewehr 44? I thought MP was meant to confuse the allies into think it was an SMG. But I would take a Ppsh41G ... if it's good enough for Krauts to drop their MP40's its good enough for me ... 70 rounds that's all there is to it.

Ahhhhh the inevitable my game is better than your game pissing contest ... I have CC3 and CC4 and they kick ass for multiplayer (and single-player, although the armor WAS braindead) ... there's a certain satisfaction in organizing some incredibly half-assed defense against an armored thrust and winning thanks to Private Steiner and his Panzerfaust. CM rocks too but CC is so much more personal ... it just seems more real to me, I don't know why, maybe its because you can see all the individual soldiers and they all have names. Not to mention the weapons scavenging. Nothing like defending the Reichstag against Soviet Guards VDV with German militia, running out of ammo, then running out to pick up some weapons and running back in!

Steel Beasts does indeed rock ... too bad you can't use some Russian armor. One thing I learned from the Steel Beast tutorial is that the laser rangefinder may burn out with too much use ... interesting fact. I'm used to M1 Tank Platoon 2 and I must say Steel Beasts kicks its ass in terms of targeting, M1TP2 its too hard to hit a moving target IMHO ... I leave it to my gunner. Why oh why was Tank Platoon! cancelled?! First tank game where I could use a Russian tank, the T-80UM2 Black Eagle, along with the Leopard 2A5 and the Challenger 2 and its cancelled ... it just sucks.

I go with Beyond Barbarossa .... its got continuity!

That's disgusting, 'Rommel' So the only minuses to the lengthening of the war would be increased American casualties? (and your 500,000 estimate is ridiculously low) Of course the Russian and German losses in such a scenario don't matter, huh? The US would've been screwed without the A-bomb ... few would deny it. There is no way the Anglo-Americans would've retained allied air superiority with the Red Air Force flying alongside the Luftwaffe (freshly reinforced with pletiful amounts of Soviet fuel) ... also ... the vast majority of the Wehrmacht (on the Eastern front) immediately transferred to the West, accompanied by the entire Red Army? It wouldve been over in short order I can tell you ... and for those transferred divisions the Western front would've been a field day and it wouldn't take that long at all for the Red Army to move up to the Western Front either. About american industrial might, consider that it has to travel across the Atlantic ... where hundreds of U-Boats made from Russian resources would be waiting. About the A-bomb, well you can't argue with that can you But it's a silly argument

An unlikely scenario The Germans had done far too much damage to the USSR for Stalin or the Soviet people to brook any sort of alliance ... at the start of the war (this is from that excellent World at War documentary series) it was feasible to think of German soldiers as fellow workers in uniform being forced to war by capitalist blah blah but as the war went on there was pure hatred towards these 'fish-eyed oafs' (as some war literature called them) ... a line from one poem went "kill them, kill them all!" But, for crowds to tear apart some token SS men is unlikely ... there was no jeering or assualting of the captured German troops who were paraded through Mosocow in 42 or 43 ... just silence. At the end of the parade the streets were sprayed with disenfectant though. T-34\88 ... very nice thought ... I think it would be more likely though that they'd simply start churning out Panther II (with IR gear) tanks in Russia Of course ... the British and Americans would be SCREWED ... Shermans against masses of Panther II's, Tiger II's, T-34\85's, JS-2's .... oh the horror. Perhaps some cross training between the Waffen SS and Soviet Guards units.

Actually the game is simply called Tank Platoon! Why? Not only can you use the M1A2 Abrams, you can also use the UK Challenger 2, the German Leopard 2 and last but not least the Russian T-80UM2 (mistakenly given the name Black Eagle, this is the name of a totally new tank being developed in cooperation with South Korea)

If this question has already been asked forgive me but I was wondering as to whether there is a difference between Anglo-American elite units and German elite units ... are they the same, or are the German elites better?

Yeah I bought the book last week! It's of course better than the movie, I have yet to see one movie adaptation that actually is better than the book. THERE'S A CROSS OF IRON DVD?!? WOO HOOOOO!!!!!! I don't care if the print sucks I bought the Dune DVD too

Yeah you're right the ending is unconventional to say the least ... I love the opening credits ... watching the Russian soldiers toss the Nazi banners in front of Lenin's Mausoleum

I just read battlefront.com manifesto and realized that excellent Sam Peckenpah film Cross of Iron was actually MENTIONED somewhere ... I tell people I enjoy Cross of Iron much more than SPR and they don't even know what I'm talking about (possibly because SPR is so damn self-concious and depicts the Germans as either monsters or cartoons, typical spielberg) Stalingrad, a German film, is also plain brilliant. Does anyone know of any other great Eastern Front movies? How many people here have seen Cross of Iron? Where did they get those T-34\76s? The Ppsh41s?

Yeah Def I'd much rather believe the Americans ...

Liddell Hart the greatest military thinker? What'd he do (besides the books)?

Thats what I said ... in all liklihood an eventual Soviet victory would've been inevitable. Third Reich eventually self-destruct ... hmmm interesting. I've heard it many times that the Reich would probably not have survived after the death of their Fuhrer but perhaps you know other possible reasons ... 'Big Time Software' ? [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 04-02-2000).]

Very true Mark IV Many people in this forum confused winning the war with winning the peace.

Hmmm seem to have kicked up a hornets nest. Indeed I didn't say straight out that the USSR didn't need any help but it was the Red Army that defeated the vast majority of the Wehrmacht, and although the average Soviet infantryman was poorly trained compared to his German counterpart it was not simply a matter of 'human waves' that carried Russia to Berlin. Aid from the other allies was important to the Soviet war effort yes, but to say it allowed them to win the war is a stretch. Shortened the war? Definitely. And I think there's little dispute that a tanker would rather have a T-34 or JS-2 over a Sherman (damn popguns! Add on some firepower!)