mrcitizenkane

Patton should have rolled his tanks through East Berlin to Moscow when he had a chance after meeting the Soviets in Berlin.

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html [ May 07, 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: mrcitizenkane ]

Yet another string of my tank is better then your tank. Lets face a few things. #1 There is no super tank that is better then the rest. #2 Even the best tank, must have a good crew with experience in fighting their enemy. Knowing your enemy is the key to any victory. The Soviets train of thought was build them fast and a lot of them to over-whelm the enemy. Which in mid to late war they did very well. The T-34 was a great tank for its time, but it had is faults. The Germans had some great tanks too and again they had there faults. I was watching a WWII documentary on TV a few months back. They had some WWII German tank crews interviews. One of them was a Tiger tank commander. He recalled knocking out 6 T-34s alone before they got their track knock off then they knock out 6 more tanks before running out of ammo. I think that's pretty good odds. T-34s where know for water leaks and electrical problems. They where one of the few diesel powered tanks in WWII, that gave them a huge advantage in power/speed but that Christy track configuration took for-ever to stop rocking to get a shot off accurately. The US abandoned the Christy track configuration do to the rocking effect. The US did not go with diesels because of the shortage of diesel engines, seemed the Navy was getting them all. The logistics of a single fuel for all vehicles made more sense at the time anyway. Sloped armor was another great thing about the T34, but mid war standards it was out gunned until they cam out with the 85. All in all a great tank! I think you can build a equal/fair battle with any year time frame in all cases. Good luck!

[ April 25, 2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: mrcitizenkane ]

The IDF uses a lot of US equipment, its just HIGHLY modified. Ive seen many modified 113s and M60s on the news lately as well as many US made small arms. The M1 is a great tank. The Russians have nothing that compares to the weapon systems it has. It mainly use JP-8 fuel, like most helicopters, planes in the US arsenal but is multi-fuel capable.

Did the Germans need to produce the numbers of tanks the Soviets did? Probably not, Seeing interviews with German WWII vets all saying one German Tiger could take out 12-13 T34s even being immobile before getting taken out. Soviets expected high loses and made up on it in producing mass numbers. People where expendable war material. I think Stalin's men took out more Soviet officers then the Germans. Sorry to get off the subject a bit. Just remember the Soviets Lost 22million people in WWII just fighting Germany. The Germans lost a third of that and the US rounds outs under 400k. If the Soviet war machine was better then the Germans, What happened?

Hmm Ive played CC3 for a long time and it seems the King Tigers and Jag would hold their own against the SU-152. The 152mm gun doesn't have much velocity behind it. It seemed like the SU-122 could knock one out much easier. Don't know how accurate the modeling of the Tanks are in CC3? The SU-152 would take out buildings with short work and the 12.7 machine guns are not bad either. One thing, why would the Germans have bunkers? They blitz in the beginning and ran at the end? Seems like the Soviets had the bunkers?

"Army-Waffen-SS relations hit their low during the April 1941 invasion of Yugoslavia. There were several incidents in which SS troops threatened to fire on army columns clogging the line of advance. (One SS regiment leader even positioned antitank mines directly below the front tires of the first truck in an army column, and posted a SS grenadier with strict orders to shoot any German soldier who moved the mines!) In fact the Army's GrossDeutchland division and the Waffen-SS Das Reich division were competing to be the first to capture Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital. (The SS won, thanks to the efforts of SS-Oberführer Fritz Klingenberg - who captured the city first)" From http://www.wssob.com/combat.html

"Army-Waffen-SS relations hit their low during the April 1941 invasion of Yugoslavia. There were several incidents in which SS troops threatened to fire on army columns clogging the line of advance. (One SS regiment leader even positioned antitank mines directly below the front tires of the first truck in an army column, and posted a SS grenadier with strict orders to shoot any German soldier who moved the mines!) In fact the Army's GrossDeutchland division and the Waffen-SS Das Reich division were competing to be the first to capture Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital. (The SS won, thanks to the efforts of SS-Oberführer Fritz Klingenberg - who captured the city first)" From http://www.wssob.com/combat.html

Yea, the regular German army troops shot SS too. I was watching a doc with interviews of German W.W.II vets. They said it was common late in the war. One day him and another enlisted guy was approached by SS officer and ordered to protect him, about the time their NCO approached him drew his side arm and shot him in the head. To much of a liability since the Soviets loved to get there hands on the SS!

Thats Bitmaps, not the Soviet BMP personel carriers.

Maybe it is done that way because of game play. It could be burning etc too.

I read a report on Russian Night fighting in WWII and the Soviets did not use flares very much at all. They were very short on them and also they wanted to keep night fighting as simple as possible.

Great stuff, tells us even what was considered a great tank of the time had faults! http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/stat/stat7.html

This was translated from Russian to English, which was already done on the site. You are right, I think it was probably translated wronge. That would be a mile a second. 5700 feet per second? That's 1900 m/s. More than the high velocity 120mm of the M1A1 and the Leopard 2. I highly doubt that number.</font>

Cool stuff I got off the net, written by a Soviet General. "EVALUATION OF THE T-34 AND KV TANKS BY ENGINEERS OF THE ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS, SUBMITTED BY FIRMS, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING TANKS T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization. The condition of the tanks The T-34 medium tank after driving 343 km, became completely disabled and that could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air filter system on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and American 3" gun of the M-10 tank (M10 "Wolverine" SP antitank gun - Valera). After that, it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit. The heavy tank KV-1 is still functional. Tests were continued, although it had many mechanical defects. T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation The silhouette/configuration of the tanks Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank. Armor A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate Sherman's galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.) T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation Hull The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during a water crossings, as well as the upper hull during a rain. In a heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition. The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed. Turret The main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans couldn't understand how our tankers could fit inside during a winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets (Americans tested the T-34 with a two-men turret - Valera). The electrical mechanism for rotating the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, very overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend replace it with a hydraulic or simply manual system. T-34-76 that was delivered in USA for evaluation Armament The F-34 gun is a very good. It is simple, very reliable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the muzzle velocity of AP round is significantly inferior to the American 3" gun (3200 feet versus 5700 feet per second). Optic The general opinion: the best construction (please notice - the best construction doesn't mean the best at all - Valera) in the world. Incomparable with any existing tanks or any under development. Tracks The Americans like very much the idea of a steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no reason for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-calibre and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of a poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable. Suspension On the T-34, it is poor. The Christie's suspension was tested long time ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected (American "Shermans" and "General Lees" had very poor suspension as well. At the same time the British used Christie's suspension and were quite satisfied - Valera). On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good. Engine The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and, therefore, the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks. The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that: the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor; its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc (that claim was accepted, and later T-34 variants received the new, better, "Cyclon" filter - Valera). On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction. Transmission Without a doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent. The Americans were surprised not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms. Side friction clutches Out of a doubt, very poor. In USA, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning. General comments From the American point of view, our tanks are slow (Americans got the T-34 with a 4-speed gearbox. With a such gearbox, T-34 could use the 4th speed on a firm and even surface - i.e. on roads. Thus, the max speed on the cross-country was 25.6 km/h. On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox to be installed. This gearbox allowed to drive with a 30.5 km/h. - Valera). Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular, the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the transmission links on the T-34. After much torment they made a new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks mechanisms demand very frequent fine-tuning. Conclusions, suggestions On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air. The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal. Make the tracks thicker. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks manoeuvrability. Abandon the use of friction clutches. Simplify the construction of small components, increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running. The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, major-general Khlopov"

Incredible. Read the review by the US Aberdeen engineers on an evalutaion T34 the Soviets gave the US in 1942. This was written by a Russian General that got the Report. Fact not fiction or hear say! Aberdeen test report T34 :eek:

A Russian WWII Reenactor group in Cali has a T34/85 and they bought the Tiger from the movie Saving Private Ryan. Can't find the link, but I have it at home. Will post it later. You can ask them!

You too can own a T34/85 for ~40k. A importer in Denver sells them. Will the neighbors mind if I park it in the backyard?

The what if factor is always FUN to play but my not be historically correct! If you don't like them don't use them! Its always nice to have all the time period arms modeled for game play use!

Cant we all just get along? Im glad there is so many passionate about the game and people who post regularly. My wife got the game for x-mas for me and Im still in the learning curve but hope to take on some real opponents soon. I like the game very much. I play CC3 often too but it seems BF is becoming more of my passion as far as games go. Good Day and playing on! <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by mrcitizenkane: He started it! Any-way, I posed a question. He started by insulting me, knowing nothing about me. I admit I should have took the higher ground and been more mature then I was, but so should he. People tend to take thing to personal when you are looking for constructive criticism sometimes. <hr></blockquote>

He started it! Any-way, I posed a question. He started by insulting me, knowing nothing about me. I admit I should have took the higher ground and been more mature then I was, but so should he. People tend to take thing to personal when you are looking for constructive criticism sometimes. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mace: Actually Rune was one of the key-beta testers for CMBO and CMBB, a scenario developer of some standing, a fine member of the CM community, and would be a really nice bloke if he wasn't so Evil! Oh, and like me, he is in the 40-45 age bracket! So by rights you should be on your knees subserviant yelling "I am not worthy" before you insult him. Mace [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Mace ]<hr></blockquote>

MadMatt Just for FYI. Why didn't they do the game really time with a little more AI instead of turn based? Is it because of the graphics processing? I'll do some more research on aromor issue, any-one can be wronge. Thanx <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: Mitch, we are more than willing to listen to your comments but you had better have some pretty substantial evidence to support your opinion otherwise you will be taken to task very rapidly. Posts like yours are often identified as Troll Bait so please follow up your initial views with some examples of why you think the modeling is off. I would suggest that you also do a search through our forums for such issues as "Realistic Modeling, Ubertanks" etc... as you will see literally hundreds of topics where this very issue was brought up (and where the opinion was proven to be unsubstantiated or just plain flawed)in the past. Madmatt [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Madmatt ]<hr></blockquote>

While I think being called a troll is quite humorous I cant help thinking it shows your intelligence and matured level. For your sake I hope you are a 13 year boy! Thanks for the quote from a book by the way, it show us you can copy. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rune: What troll boy doesn't mention is that rexford agrees with BTS. As the war went on, the armor quality wasn't as good. I quote from Rexford: Miles Krogfus recently sent me some very valuable information on German weld and armor quality, as well as firing test data against Panthers from Aberdeen Proving Grounds (3 tanks) and Shoeburyness England (1 tank). The firing tests were conducted against glacis armor which had not been previously hit, and the the tanks had not burned. Miles' information shows that German alloy use for welding was cut starting January 1944. The firing tests show that glacis armor on 3 of 4 Panther tanks (Ausf A and G), when under attack by rounds which should not penetrate (17 pdr AP and APCBC, 90mm APCBC), developed cracks, sprung welds and allowed some complete penetrations that should not have occurred. If the manufacture of Panther glacis armor and accompanying welds started to stand a statistical chance of lowered resistance during early 1944, this would include a good sized percentage of Panther A tanks. So as we see from an author on the subject, that indeed the Panther glacis was flawed. Rexford even states in another post that it could go down to 75%, whereas BTS has it at 85%. Maybe with an engine re-write each tank can have a differnet armor value, but considering the game has been out 20 months, I think they did rather well. Ignore the trolls. They can't stand sunlight or honest answers. Rune<hr></blockquote> [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: mrcitizenkane ]</p>

Oh you think Im one of those! Sure jump on me and thinking Im talking about German armor being invincilbe your WRONGE!! I was speaking of a 88mm not taking out a Sherman V with one shot at almost any range! Not talking about any-thing about german armor! I think you are taking things a bit personal! I like the game. Just wish it was real time but hey you can't have every-thing. Bring it on if you want to play against me and you will find about my tactics. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ParaBellum: Well this looks a little bit like the old "what, my Tiger just get whacked by an american tank??? But they're sooo invincible! Noone should hurt my Tiger... :eek: Many people who played CM for the first time were surprised how vulnerable the mighty Tigers and Panthers are in this game. The point is that by 1944/45 they weren't Ubertanks anymore. Keep in mind that the Tiger's armour isn't sloped, which means that US 76mm will penetrate even at medium distances. And if they happen to get tungsten rounds better be careful with your Tiger... That's reality, as sad as it is. If you want the "invincible" feeling, put a Tiger against some vanilla Shermans with 75mm gun and have fun. Same for the Panther. A great tank, sure. But even a Greyhound with its 37mm gun will tear through its weak side armour. And the early models have this nasty shot trap. A problem for the german tanks in CM are the relative short engagement distances in CM, which are usually between 400-800m. At this distance the german armour looses some of their advantages (better guns, better armour). Put a Panther in a hull down position 1500m away from US tanks and things will be different. The only thing IMHO that is questionable for the US tanks is their ability to hit their targets with a very high accuracy while moving. So, as long as you don't provide hard data that shows that CM's modelling of german/US armour is wrong I can only recommend to improve your tactics. BTW if you do a search you will find zillions of posts regarding this topic which will cover every aspect of armour in CM.<hr></blockquote>